diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fa3a567 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs.txt @@ -0,0 +1,23149 @@ + Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca + Direzione generale dell’internazionalizzazione e della comunicazione +Avviso pubblico per la presentazione di proposte progettuali per “Rafforzamento e creazione di Infrastrutture di Ricerca” da + finanziare nell’ambito del PNRR +Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza, Missione 4, “Istruzione e Ricerca” - Componente 2, “Dalla ricerca all’impresa” - + Linea di investimento 3.1, “Fondo per la realizzazione di un sistema integrato di infrastrutture di ricerca e innovazione”, + finanziato dall’Unione europea - NextGenerationEU + + Istanza di Variazione + + + + + 1 / 453 + Spett.le + Ministero dell’università e della ricerca + Direzione Generale dell’internazionalizzazione e della comunicazione + Largo Antonio Ruberti, 1 – 00153 ROMA + + + +OGGETTO: Avviso per la concessione di finanziamenti destinati alla creazione o al potenziamento di +Infrastrutture di ricerca (IR) individuate nel PNIR, il Programma Nazionale delle Infrastrutture di Ricerca, +nonché la creazione di reti tematiche o multidisciplinari di IR esistenti, sempre tra quelle presenti nel PNIR, +da finanziare nell’ambito del PNRR – Istanza di variazione identificata al IR0000014_VAR007 + + +Il sottoscritto Maria Chiara Carrozza, nato a PISA il 16/09/1965, legale rappresentante, o suo delegato, del Soggetto +Proponente Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + + PRESENTA + +istanza di variazione identificata al codice IR0000014_VAR007 in conformità all’art. 15 dell’Avviso n. 3264/2021. +Costituiscono parte integrante e sostanziale della istanza tutti gli allegati indicati nella Sezione Allegati, che si intendono +sottoscritti in uno alla presente. + + Firmato digitalmente + + + Fabrizio + Sebastiani + 30.09.2025 + 11:57:42 + GMT+02:00 + + + + + 2 / 453 + Dati di sintesi della variazione + + Tipologia di Variazione: Variazione straordinaria, + + + + + 3 / 453 + Descrizione della Variazione: Questa variazione recepisce la estensione semestrale fino al 30/04/2026 e la +domanda di rimodulazione costi del personale del co-proponente UNIPA per totali 375.000€; il dettaglio è in questo +specchietto: + +Task€ +1.7-€ 30.000,00 +1.8€ 30.000,00 +3.1-€ 30.000,00 +3.2.2€ 30.000,00 +3.1-€ 20.000,00 +3.2.4€ 20.000,00 +6.2.1-€ 45.000,00 +4.2.2€ 45.000,00 +6.2.1-€ 35.000,00 +5.2.3€ 35.000,00 +7.2.3-€ 45.000,00 +7.2.2€ 45.000,00 +1.5€ 50.000,00 +1.8-€ 60.000,00 +1.5€ 60.000,00 +1.8-€ 20.000,00 +1.9€ 20.000,00 +11.3-€ 10.000,00 +11.1€ 10.000,00 +11.3-€ 10.000,00 +11.2€ 10.000,00 +8.2.3-€ 10.000,00 +8.2.2€ 10.000,00 +3.1-€ 10.000,00 +3.2.4€ 10.000,00 + + + +Il co-proponente UNIPA ha comunicato: +In data 27/02/2025, il Board di progetto ITSERR, ha approvato una rideterminazione dell’impegno scientifico e +progettuale, a seguito dell’impatto dirompente dell’Intelligenza Artificiale sul mondo scientifico in genere e sui +Religious +Studies in particolare, rispetto al contesto di progettazione presente nel 2021, anno dell’Avviso IR in oggetto. Infatti, +nel +corso dell’esecuzione delle attività progettuali, tutti i tools, i dataset, i software ed in genere le soluzioni digitali +immaginate e pianificate nella proposta progettuale sono stati riesaminati, riscritti e ridefiniti in base all’approccio AI. +Oltre il rilevante lavoro per il personale impegnato nei vari WP, ciò ha comportato un riallineamento degli +investimenti +in termini di strumentazione scientifica e attrezzature tecnologiche, licenze software e brevetti. Tale riordino rende +necessario ritarare gli investimenti in termini di hardware specifico, peraltro previsti dalla proposta ab origine, in +modo +da poter reggere l’urto dell’IA sul futuro quantomeno prossimo della piattaforma digitale frutto del lavoro del +Software +Lab anche in vista della sinergia strategica posta in essere con il C.N.R. Emerge, dunque, la necessità di macchine +altamente performanti in termini AI, quindi di sistemi di High Performance Computing (HPC) adeguati alla dorsale +tecnologica software che diverrà pienamente operativa dal 31/10/2025 e che diverrà patrimonio della comunità +scientifica +nazionale, internazionale e della IR Europea RESILIENCE. +Il Consiglio di Amministrazione dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo, recependo la richiesta avanzata dai +responsabili amministrativo e scientifico, ha deliberato l’avvio di una procedura di gara per l’acquisizione per la +“Fornitura ed installazione Infrastruttura AI on premise”, una soluzione tecnologica per lo sviluppo, gestione ed +erogazione di servizi basati su modelli di Intelligenza Artificiale, interamente installata e gestibile on premise. In tal + + + + 4 / 453 + erogazione di servizi basati su modelli di Intelligenza Artificiale, interamente installata e gestibile on premise. In tal +senso, +le risorse progettuali indicate a tale scopo sulla tipologia di costo B - “Strumentazione scientifica e attrezzature +tecnologiche, licenze software e brevetti” sono pari a € 1.282.103,28, che permangono all’interno delle attività previste +dall’Università degli Studi di Palermo – U.O. Dipartimento di Culture e Società, su un totale concesso sulla voce B +pari +a € 6.728.341,80. + +Il co-proponente UNIPA ha altresì comunicato: +A seguito di mancate selezioni di potenziali dottorandi a valere sugli avvisi pubblicati dall’Università degli Studi +di Palermo, nello specifico pari a 6 su 11 posizioni previste su vari WP, con le conseguenti economie, nell’ottica di un +pieno e completo raggiungimento degli obiettivi progettuali, emerge la necessità di prevedere una Summer School +dedicata ai dottorandi degli atenei soggetti della compagine ITSERR, sul tema dei Religious Studies in rapporto alle +innovazioni frutto delle attività progettuali quanto alla luce dell’impatto dell’Intelligenza Artificiale sul mondo dei +Religious Studies. I dottorandi nella loro attività di formazione saranno poi, a conclusione della Summer School, a +diretto +confronto con i ricercatori specificamente assunti sul progetto in sessioni di executive education congiunea. Tali +attività +sono oggetto di una unica procedura di gara per l’acquisizione degli adeguati e relativi servizi di formazione. A tale +scopo, +le risorse progettuali dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo dedicate a tale procedura sono pari a € 156.099,00. Ne +consegue che la cost description delle attività originariamente previste per phd scholarship vada reindirizzata verso +training services ed executive education. +Nel contesto della procedura di gara per l’acquisizione per la “Fornitura ed installazione Infrastruttura AI on +premise”, citata al punto relativo alla tipologia di costo B, parte dei servizi da acquisire sono di carattere formativo per +i +soggetti della compagine, trattandosi di una infrastruttura altamente complessa che richiede il necessario +addestramento. +A tale scopo, le risorse progettuali dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo dedicate sono pari a € 348.454,68. Anche in +tal +caso, la cost description delle attività originariamente previste per phd scholarship va reindirizzata verso training +services. +Inoltre, la compagine di progetto e l’Università degli Studi di Palermo hanno ritenuto congruo e coerente con gli +obiettivi di progetto, la partecipazione - come team - al Master di II livello “Executive Master in Management of +Research +Infrastructures” organizzato dall’Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca. A conclusione del percorso formativo, +completato con esito positivo dal team del progetto ITSERR, l’Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca assegnerà +all’infrastruttura di ricerca del progetto un “Certificato di eccellenza” delle infrastrutture di ricerca, come +organizzazione +che valorizza lo sviluppo del personale nella leadership. A tale scopo, le risorse progettuali dell’Università degli Studi +di +Palermo dedicate sono pari a € 15.000,00. Anche in tal caso, la cost description delle attività originariamente previste +per +phd scholarship va reindirizzata verso training services. + + + + + 5 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 1 Legal name; Tax code; VAT number, Legal address + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + Legal Name Tax code 80054330586 + Ricerche + + P.le A. Moro 7, 00185 + VAT number 02118311006 Legal address + ROMA RM + + 2 Legal representative: personal data and contacts + + First Name Maria Chiara Last Name Carrozza + + Gender Female TAX Code CRRMCH65P56G702V + + Birth date 16/09/1965 Birth place PISA + + Phone number 0649933200 e-mail presidenza@cnr.it + + + 3 Management and reasearch structure + + The National Research Council (CNR) is the largest public research institution in Italy, with multidisciplinary competences, acting under + the Ministry of University and Research and having legal public-law status as well as scientific, financial, organizational, patrimonial + and accounting autonomy. CNR mission is to carry out, promote, transfer, encourage and enhance research in order to apply the results + for the scientific, cultural, technological, economic and social development of Italy. It is the first research institution for number of + researchers: the staff counts more than 8.000 researchers, technologists, technicians and administrators. CNR structure includes a central + administration, 7 scientific Departments and 88 Institutes with specific leading expertise in science/technology sectors, with more than + 220 secondary sites and laboratories in Italy and abroad. The Departments are structured in macro-thematic areas, whose task is to be + the interface between the CNR’ offer and the research demand within the whole Italian economic system and to coordinate the Institutes in + the process of expanding their research activities. In some cities Institutes are aggregated within research areas, offering support services and + representing a scientific and cultural attraction pole. CNR operates on the basis of its own 3-year activity plan, that sets general guidelines + and establishes objectives, priorities, and resources for the entire period, consistent with the National Research Program and with EU + research programs. Over the last years and under the coordination of one or more Departments, CNR has consolidated its position, as the + main public research organization participating, at national level, in the largest number of Research Infrastructures of national and + European interest, included in the ESFRI Roadmap or in the National Research Infrastructure Program, both as lead organization and + as participant. + + + 4 Financial Management System + + + + + 6 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + From an accounting-administrative point of view, CNR is equipped with a computerized recording and storage system of accounting data + through which it is possible to obtain both prints and data extractions: SIGLA is an Integrated System for the Accounting Management + that allows the management control (including the flow) of financial resources and aligns the internal accounting management with the + reporting criteria of research projects to which CNR participates. + Moreover, in line with the European system and in order to improve the connection within the Public Administration’s accounts, CNR + adopts in its financial statement the integrated chart of accounts consistent with the provisions of the D.P.R. 4/10/13 n.132. General + directives and provisions of Law 6 November 2012 n. 190 are published within the institutional website section "Amministrazione + Trasparente", currently being updated to incorporate the changes introduced by Legislative Decree 25 May 2016 n. 97 (GU General + Series N. 132 of 08/06/2016). In the specific sub-section "Bandi di gara e contratti”, in compliance with the provisions of the law, + there are published tender notices and summary tables - made freely available in an open standard digital format - relating to tender + award procedures. With regard to the compliance with obligations set out in the Data Protection Regulation 679/2016, CNR has + prepared a compliance plan to the law through the appointment of the Data Protection Officer - as well as the creation of register of the + Data Controller of data processing activities. + + + 5 Specific skills of the applicant with respect to this proposal + + The National Research Council (CNR) has a leading role in the scientific fields underlying the proposal, namely Artificial Intelligence + (AI for short) and Research Infrastructures (RI) for the Humanities. The Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence for Media and the + Humanities of the Institute of Science and Technologies of the Information, where the Scientific Coordinator of the proposal carries out his + research activity since several decades, has a strong competences in the main areas of AI involved in the proposal, namely semantic + technologies, human language processing, vision and multimedia information processing. The Laboratory has also had a leading role in the + development of RI for the Humanities through the European projects ARIADNE and ARIADNEplus, addressing the archaeological + community, e-RIHS PP, addressing the heritage science community, and PARTHENOS, creating a cluster with the main RIs in the + Humanities in Europe, notably DARIAH and CLARIN amongst others. These competences will be put at the service of the needs of + the community of religious studies in the proposed project, in order to strengthen the RESILIENCE RI by developing common ontologies + and vocabularies, integrating and FAIRfying data, developing AI-based tools. + + + + + 7 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 6 Operating Unit(s) (OU(s)) directly involved in the project + + 6.1 OU [1] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + OU Short Name 1 OU Name + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + OU Type Institute + Address + + Region Toscana Province PISA + + Municipality PISA ZIP Code 56124 + + Address via G. Moruzzi Street Number 1 + Contact Person + + First Name Fabrizio Last Name Sebastiani + + Phone number 0506212892 e-mail fabrizio.sebastiani@isti.cnr.it + + 6.2 OU Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" - Scientific-technological expertise + and experience + + The Operation Unit (Unità Operativa) is part of the Laboratory denominated Artificial Intelligence for Media and + Humanities. The Laboratory investigates and advances the state of the art in the Artificial Intelligence field, + specifically addressing applications to digital media and digital humanities, taking into account issues related to + scalability. It addresses techniques and methods ranging from traditional, logic-based, ontology-driven approaches to + approaches based on machine learning. This includes: + - AI-based solutions to image and video content analysis, understanding, and classification, namely techniques for + detection, recognition (object, pedestrian, face, etc), classification, feature extraction (low- and high-level, relational, + cross-media, etc), anomaly detection also considering adversarial machine learning threats. + - AI-based solutions to textual data analysis, understanding, and classification, namely representation learning for + text classification, transfer learning for cross-lingual and cross-domain text classification, sentiment classification, + sequence learning for information extraction, text quantification, transductive text classification, and applications of + the above to domains such as authorship analysis and technology-assisted review. + - AI-based solutions to represent, access, archive, and manage tangible and intangible cultural heritage data. This + includes solutions based on ontologies, with a special focus on narratives, and solutions based on multimedia + + + + 8 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + content analysis, recognition, and retrieval. + In addition, the laboratory is actively engaged in the development of Research Infrastructures for the Humanities, + supporting the development of ontologies for data integration and FAIRfication, applied in the context of several + European Projects related such as Europeana v2.0, v3.0, Europeana Cloud , ARIADNE, ARIADNEplus and + PARTHENOS. + + + + + 9 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 7 National and international collaboration + + In the area of Artificial Intelligence for Vision and Multimedia: JOANNEUM RESEARCH, Graz, Austria + (https://www.joanneum.at/en/). Instituto Superior Técnico of Lisbon, Portugal (https://tecnico.ulisboa.pt/en/). Charles University, + Prague Czech Republic (https://cuni.cz/). Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Baja California, + Messico (https://www.cicese.edu.mx/). New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Jersey USA (https://www.njit.edu/). + In the area of Artificial Intelligence for Human Language: Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland; Department of + Computer Science, University of Amsterdam; Technische Universität Dortmund, University of Dortmund; Universitat Politècnica de + València, University of Valencia; RAI - Radiotelevisione Italiana. + In the area of Semantic Technologies: ICS FORTH Heraklion, Crete, Greece, developer of the International Standards CIDOC + CRM. + In the area of Research Infrastructures for the Humanities, through the above mentioned projects, the most important collaborations are + with: ARIADNE Research Infrastructure for Archaeology (https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/), The Digital Research Infrastructure + for the Arts and Humanities (DARIAH, https://www.dariah.eu/), The Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure + (CLARIN, https://www.clarin.eu/), TGIR Humanum in France (https://www.huma-num.fr/), The Netherlands Network for + Humanities, Social Sciences and Technology eH.NL in the Netherlands (eHumanities.NL), The Archaeological Data Service in the + UK (https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/), the German Archaeological Institute (https://www.dainst.org/en/dai/meldungen), the + Academy of Athens (http://www.academyofathens.gr/en), D4Science (https://www.d4science.org/), + + + + + 10 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 8 Scientific coordinator of project + + 8.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Fabrizio Last name Sebastiani + + Gender Male TAX Code SBSFRZ60B15C372J + + Birth date 15/02/1960 Birth place CAVALESE + + Phone number 0506212892 e-mail fabrizio.sebastiani@isti.cnr.it + + 8.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents attached) + + 8.3 Appointment letter as scientific coordinator of the project + (See documents attached) + + + + + 11 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 9 Financial Officer in charge of the project + + 9.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Alessandro Last name Nardi + + Gender Male TAX Code NRDLSN75B22E625N + + Birth date 22/02/1975 Birth place LIVORNO + + Phone number 0506213470 e-mail alessandro.nardi@isti.cnr.it + + 9.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents attached) + + 9.3 Appointment letter as scientific coordinator of the project + (See documents attached) + + + + + 12 / 453 + a) APPLICANT +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + +10 Manager of the infrastructure as per Article 1 of the call for proposals, provide + + 10.1 Duties, expected profile and specific requirements + + The Manager of the research infrastructure is expected to control and oversee all management operations, people, and strategy developments + of the organization. Very strong leadership skills will be essential since the Manager of the research infrastructure is the one expected to + interact with the staff, the scientists, and the funders. The duties are: + - Develop and execute the infrastructure’s strategies + - Prepare and implement comprehensive business plans + - Communicate and maintain trust relationships with stakeholders, science professionals, business partners, and funders + - Oversee the organisation’s financial performance + - Support the development of new service opportunities and funding + - Coordinate with science professionals in determining research service provision and priorities + The specific requirements are: + - Proven experience as manager or other managerial position in science-based organisations; previous experience in managing research + infrastructures - and core facilities will be preferred + - Demonstrable experience in developing strategic and business plans + - Thorough knowledge of the research infrastructure ecosystem + - Strong understanding of financials and performance measures + - Excellent organisational and leadership skills + - Excellent communication, interpersonal and presentation skills + - Outstanding analytical and problem-solving abilities + - MSc/MA in business administration or relevant field; MA in the field of research infrastructure/science management will be preferred. + + + + + 13 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 11 Legal name; Tax code; VAT number, Legal address + + Università degli studi di + Legal Name Tax code 00427620364 + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + VAT number 00427620364 + Legal address + + Region Emilia Romagna Province MODENA + + Municipality MODENA ZIP Code 41121 + + Address via dell'Università Street number 4 + + + 12 Legal representative: personal data and contacts + + First name Carlo Adolfo Last name Porro + + Gender Male TAX Code PRRCLD54T24F257H + + Birth date 24/12/1954 Birth place MODENA + + Phone number 0592056457 e-mail rettore@unimore.it + + + 13 Management and research structure + + The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE) was created in 1998, merging the University of Modena (founded in + 1175, one of the oldest universities in Europe) and the one of Reggio Emilia. UNIMORE has just over 27,000 students, including + 3,500 postgraduates, 900 faculty members and 17 graduate (PhD) courses. UNIMORE structure includes 13 scientific Departments + and 10 Interdipartimental Research Centers. UNIMORE benefits from a longstanding relationship with the area’s firms and + corporations in the area of agro-food and energy. UNIMORE is considered one of the best universities in Italy for teaching and research: + it ranks amongst the top 8 large-sized Italian universities for its high-level research and educational programs. UNIMORE offers state- + of-the-art facilities with internationally sponsored research activities and, through the UNIMORE’s technopoles, it is an essential + component of the Emilia-Romagna High Technology Network. University Departments manage and promote research activity. The + university has a strategic commitment to promote research in the following major areas: 1) advanced mechanics and automotive design: + innovation in product development, materials and manufacturing; 2) smart ICT for smart social worlds; 3) stem cells and regenerative + medicine; 4) nano- and emerging materials and systems for sustainable technologies; 5) genomic and molecular medicine; 6) environments, + food and health. + + + + + 14 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 14 Financial Management System + + UNIMORE manages its financial flows through the internal accounting system, based in the Main Head Quarters. The accounting + office is responsible for the analysis of the requests delivered by the Departments. UNIMORE adopts in its financial statement the + integrated chart of accounts consistent with the provisions of the D.P.R. 4/10/13 n.132. General directives and provisions of Law 6 + November 2012 n. 190 are published within the institutional website section "Amministrazione Trasparente". Every year + UNIMORE adheres to the three-year Corruption and Transparency Prevention Plan (L. 190/2012; D.Lgs. 33/2013; 39/2013; + 62/2013) following the indications contained in the National Anti-Corruption Plan approved by National Anti-Corruption Authority. + This section on the website contains documents, information and data related to the obligation of transparency and diffusion of information + to which UNIMORE – as public administration - is obliged by law. The aims of the mentioned section are different, either to convey + accessible information to the general public; and to provide details related to the activities of UNIMORE, encouraging the checking of the + institutional functions and the proper and correct usage of the public founds. In the specific sub-section "Bandi di gara e contratti” are + published tender notices and summary tables relating to tender award procedures. + Also the session of the “Bilanci” contains information related to the final balance sheet (“Bilancio preventivo e consuntivo”) and the + Indicators plan and expected budget results (“Piano degli Indicatori e risultati attesi di bilancio”). Accordingly with the Data Protection + Regulation (art. 37 Reg. EU) about the personal protection data, UNIMORE published a plan and defines the Data Protection. + + + 15 Specific skills of the applicant with respect to this proposal + + The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE) is a public university, organized according to the “university network” + model. The University is the primary venue for free research and education, and is a place of learning, development and critical processing + of knowledge. + + The University carries out its purposes, within the current legislation framework, in full didactic, scientific, financial, patrimonial, + organizational, negotiation, management and accounting autonomy. + + UNIMORE offers state-of-the-art facilities with internationally-sponsored research activities and, through the technopoles of Modena + and Reggio Emilia, is an essential component of the Emilia-Romagna High Technology Network. Ongoing research is conducted by the + university departments + + + + + 15 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 16.1 OU [1] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + Dipartimento di Educazione e + OU Short Name 2 OU Name + Scienze Umane + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Emilia Romagna Province REGGIO EMILIA + + Municipality REGGIO NELL'EMILIA Address Viale Timavo + + ZIP Code 42121 Street Number 93 + Contact Person + + First name Federico Last name Ruozzi + + Phone number 0522523720 e-mail federico.ruozzi@unimore.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze Umane - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + Federico Ruozzi is associate professor of Church History at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and + Deputy-Diretor of FSCIRE, Fondazione per le scienze religiose, which is the leading institution of the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. He is also President of ASSRI - Associazione per lo Sviluppo delle Scienze Religiose in + Italia (Association for the Development of Religious Sciences in Italy). His scientific profile focuses on the role of + religion and media and on the figure of Don Lorenzo Milani. On the latter, he worked on the critical edition of all + his texts and on the creatino of a phisycal and digital archive of his works. Since 2014 he is in charge of the + management of all national projects where FSCIRE is leader and/or participant (e.g. RESILIENCE national + research infrastructure and other funds allocated to FSCIRE on a competitive basis). + + + 16.1 OU [2] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria + OU Short Name 3 OU Name + "Enzo Ferrari" + + OU Type Department + + + + + 16 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + Address + + Region Emilia Romagna Province MODENA + + Municipality MODENA Address via Pietro Vivarelli + + ZIP Code 41125 Street Number 10 + Contact Person + + First name Costantino Last name Grana + + Phone number 0592056265 e-mail costantino.grana@unimore.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo Ferrari" - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + Costantino Grana is Associate Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia since 2014, where he works + on Computer Visiona nd Multimedia and on the analysis of digital images of manuscripts and other sources of + cultural heritage. With his work, he contributed, among others, to the projects: Network of Excellence, VI + Programma Quadro, PRIORITY IST-2002-2.3.1.12 - Technology-enhanced Learning and Access to Cultural + Heritage (2004-2007) “DELOS: a Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries"; PRIN 2009 (2009PZY9HS_001): + Produzione artistica e viabilità nel Lazio meridionale nel tardo Medioevo. Per una ricostruzione virtuale degli itinerari + fra Campagna e Marittima. 17/10/2011 - 16/10/2013. + + + + + 17 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 17 National and International collaboration + + At the International level, UNIMORE actively participates in several networks and initiatives, just to mention the most relevant: + euRobotics aisbl; KIC EIT Manufacturing; European Energy Research Alliance EERA; EuroHPC (RIAG); HPC3; European + Factories of the Future Research Association EFFRA; EARPA Association of automotive R&D organisations; ERCOFTAC + European Research Community ON Flow, Turbulence and Combustion; ELLIS European Lab on Learning and Intelligent Systems; + European Virtual Institute on Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials KMN-VIN; BIC Bio-Based Industries Consortium; Fuel + Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking FCH JU. At national level, H2IT association of Italian research centers and companies on + hydrogen and fuel cells; the Clusters TRASPORTI ITALIA 2020; Intelligent Factory”; SPRING; CLAN AGRO-FOOD. + Italian Association on Big Data; CINECA; ICESP platform; Consortium IUNET and Consortium CINI. Regional Clust-ER + Mech, Agrifood, Greentech, Build, Create, Health, Innovate. UNIMORE counts more than 200 framework agreements with + International entities. + UNIMORE coordinates 59 international projects (H2020, HEU); 132 national projects (MUR and other entities). + + + + + 18 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 18 Principal investigator for the co-applicant + + 18.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Alberto Last name Melloni + + Gender Male TAX Code MLLLRT59A06H223A + + REGGIO + Birth date 06/01/1959 Birth place + NELL'EMILIA + + Phone number 0592056667 e-mail alberto.melloni@unimore.it + + 18.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 18.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 19 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 19 Administrative contact for the co-applicant + + 19.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Barbara Last name Rebecchi + + Gender Female TAX Code RBCBBR66H65G478A + + Birth date 25/06/1966 Birth place PERUGIA + + Phone number 0592056570 e-mail arbara.rebecchi@unimore.it + + 19.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 19.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 20 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università di Napoli L’Orientale +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 11 Legal name; Tax code; VAT number, Legal address + + Università di Napoli + Legal Name Tax code 00297640633 + L’Orientale + + VAT number 00297640633 + Legal address + + Region Campania Province NAPOLI + + Municipality NAPOLI ZIP Code 80121 + + Address VIA PARTENOPE Street number 10/A + + + 12 Legal representative: personal data and contacts + + First name Roberto Last name Tottoli + + Gender Male TAX Code TTTRRT64P05D940Z + + Birth date 05/09/1964 Birth place GAVARDO + + RETTORATO@UNIOR.I + Phone number 0816909189 e-mail + T + + + 13 Management and research structure + + STRUTTURA TRADIZIONALE TECNICO-AMMINISTRATIVA CENTRALE ORGANIZZATA AREE ED + UFFICI CON STRUTTURE DIDATTICHE, SCIENTIFICHE E DI SERVIZIO + + + 14 Financial Management System + + ENTE PUBBLICO CON MODELLO ECONOMICO PATRIMONIALE CON BILANCIO UNICO E + GESTIONE FINANZIARIA ANALITICA + + + 15 Specific skills of the applicant with respect to this proposal + + UNIOR vanta una lunga esperienza di studi sul mondo antico con una profondità areale e cronologica che ha pochi confronti in Italia. + + + + 21 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università di Napoli L’Orientale +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + Grazie a queste tematiche di ricerca multi e transdisciplinari l’Ateneo ha sviluppato comprovate competenze nell’ambito della + catalogazione e fruizione del patrimonio archeologico e culturale non solo italiano. L’implementazione di numerosi progetti nazionali ed + internazionali ha consentito ad UNIOR di mettere a punto programmi di salvaguardia e protezione di siti a rischio o di contribuire alla + valorizzazione di aree archeologiche e culturali particolarmente ricche e suggestive anche se di interesse minore. UNIOR ha un intenso e + approfondito programma di formazione che parte dalla laurea triennale per arrivare al Dottorato o alla Specializzazione in Archeologia. + Le esperienze e le competenze specifiche maturate dall’unità operativa di UNIOR consentono di raggiungere agevolmente gli obiettivi + presentati nel presente progetto. + + + + + 22 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università di Napoli L’Orientale +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 16.1 OU [1] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + OU Short Name 4 OU Name + Mediterraneo + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Campania Province NAPOLI + + Piazza San Domenico + Municipality NAPOLI Address + Maggiore + + ZIP Code 80133 Street Number 12 + Contact Person + + First name Andrea Last name D'Andrea + + Phone number 3497892367 e-mail dandrea@unior.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento Asia Africa e Mediterraneo - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + D’Andrea is a Senior Researcher. He has been Technical Director of the Centro Interdipartimentale di Servizi di + Archeologia of the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. D’Andrea took part in the archaeological explorations of + many Italian sites taking care of the digital surveys and the coordination of the digitisation of the archaeological + documentation and the implementation of the relative tools (DB, GIS, BIM, etc.). Since 2006 he has been a member + of the research groups of the archaeological missions of the University of Naples “L’Orientale” in Egypt, Saudi + Arabia, Oman, Yemen, and Ethiopia dealing with topographical and 3D surveys with laser scanning and + photogrammetry technique. He has also participated in the archaeological missions in Jordan, Cyprus and Turkey + dealing with the virtual reconstruction of ancient buildings and landscapes. D’Andrea coordinated several + archaeological research on the application of digital technologies to cultural heritage in Italy and abroad. Since 2010 + is the Scientific Director of the Italian Mission in Abou-Ghurab (Egypt) granted by Italian Ministry for Foreign + Office. In 2012-2015 he has been scientific responsible of the European Project 3D-ICONS, and 2014-2018 + principal investigator of the project “ArchaeoMode” granted by Italian and Canadian Spatial Agency. He is the + author of a monograph on the archaeological documentation and the related IT treatment. He has edited three + monographs and over 130 papers. + + + + + 23 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università di Napoli L’Orientale +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 17 National and International collaboration + + SONO ATTIVE OLTRE DUECENTO COLLABORAZIONI E ACCORDI INTERNAZIONALI CON ENTI E + UNIVERSITA' SPARSE SU TUTTI E CINQUE I CONTINENTI + + + + + 24 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università di Napoli L’Orientale +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 18 Principal investigator for the co-applicant + + 18.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Andrea Last name D'Andrea + + Gender Male TAX Code DNDNDR63R10F839K + + Birth date 10/10/1963 Birth place NAPOLI + + Phone number 3497892367 e-mail dandrea@unior.it + + 18.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 18.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 25 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università di Napoli L’Orientale +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 19 Administrative contact for the co-applicant + + 19.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Gabriele Last name Flaminio + + Gender Male TAX Code FLMGRL67B22F839O + + Birth date 22/02/1967 Birth place NAPOLI + + Phone number 0816909190 e-mail PRESS@UNIOR.IT + + 19.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 19.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 26 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 11 Legal name; Tax code; VAT number, Legal address + + Università degli Studi di + Legal Name Tax code 80023730825 + Palermo + + VAT number 00605880822 + Legal address + + Region Sicilia Province PALERMO + + Municipality PALERMO ZIP Code 90133 + + Address p.zza Marina Street number 61 + + + 12 Legal representative: personal data and contacts + + First name Massimo Last name Midiri + + Gender Male TAX Code MDRMSM62C30G273M + + Birth date 30/03/1962 Birth place PALERMO + + Phone number 09123893444 e-mail rettore@unipa.it + + + 13 Management and research structure + + The University of Palermo, officially founded in 1806, is at present an internationally acknowledged public research organization which + covers almost all main fields of study, fostering an interdisciplinary approach. + The academic structures include: 16 Departments, 1 School of Medicine, 21 libraries, 3 decentralised premises (Agrigento, Trapani, + Caltanissetta), the Museum System, the Language Centre, ITASTRA - Italian school for foreign students, the Guidance Centre. + In order to promote the quality of scientific research and teaching, the University ensures access to funding, the use and modernization of + infrastructures and technical equipment for its teachers and all personnel engaged in research, also for the purpose of allow mobility and + foster the international dimension of research. The University promotes the dissemination of research results, also by encouraging related + publications. + Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Statute identifies in the Management Centers the organizational units called to answer for the correct + management of the assigned resources, as well as for the achievement of the planned objectives. + At the organizational level, the management centers are centers of responsibility. The Management Centers corresponding to the Central + Administration Structures are distinguished from the Management Centers corresponding to the Decentralized Structures such as + Departments, Schools and Poles. + + + 27 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + Departments, Schools and Poles. + The Department is a functionally homogeneous structure for research purposes and methods, which promotes the scientific activity of its + teachers, ensures the didactic activity of its own competence and carries out the activities related to the outside or ancillary to them, + including technology transfer. The department's activities are aimed at pursuing scientific and didactic quality and improving the level of + internationalization. + + + 14 Financial Management System + + The administrative-accounting management of the University is implemented through management centers, which are the structures to + which the single budget of the University assigns a budget. + We distinguish the Centers similar to the Central Administration Structures, from the Management Centers similar to the Decentralized + Structures such as Departments, Schools and Poles. + The Management Centers are called to answer for the correct management of the resources assigned, as well as for the achievement of the + planned objectives. + The Management Centers inform their activities on criteria of effectiveness and efficiency and an approach of a collaborative and interactive + approach between the Offices, also through the consultation of common databases. + The management centers have managerial and administrative autonomy; hold an economic budget and an annual authorization + investment budget in line with the single University budget for the annual authorization forecast, as well as an economic budget and a + three-year unauthorized investment budget in line with the single budget of the 'Three-year forecast university; The responses of the + efficiency and effectiveness of the resources available to them and of the achievement of the programmed objectives. + The information-accounting system detects events by nature through the general accounting and reflects the organizational structure of the + University through the definition of the entity of attribution of the results of economic and asset management; it also notes the allocation of + costs by destination through analytical accounting. + The governance of the management and verification processes of economic-asset, general and analytical accounting, is attributed to the + Economic-Financial Area of the Central Administration, within the limits of the responsibilities of the Management Centers; the + preparation of the accounting summary documents is attributed to the General Manager. + The University information system allows the Management Centers to view and monitor the relevant accounting information flows. + For accounting management, the University uses Cineca's U-GOV application. + For the management and reporting of projects, which identify temporally defined initiatives with assigned financial and human resources + and objectives, there is a further module on the U-Gov platform, U-Gov PJ, which integrates the Accounting module. A code is assigned + for each project. + All accounting entries are managed in analytical accounting by taking the availability from the budget assigned to individual projects + during the Budget Change phase approved by the Board of Directors. + All the entries in addition to taking the budget in analytical accounting determine a cost / revenue in general accounting and consequent + printable reports from the U-Gov-PJ module. + All the expenses related to each project, including the expenses of the personnel hired, with the exception of the expenses of the personnel + + + + 28 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + already structured at the Entity, are directly recorded and reported on the specific project created and are verifia + + + 15 Specific skills of the applicant with respect to this proposal + + With particular regard to the project proposal, Unipa provides a wide expertise in the fields of: + 1) documentation, study, visualization, and fruition of Cultural Heritage Cultural (Department of Culture and Societies, Department of + Law), as it is confirmed by its digitized collections of historical manuscript, ancient books and the SIMUA, the University network of 6 + Museums and 13 scientific and educational collections, as well as 8 sites of archaeological, historical or environmental relevance + (http://www.musei.unipa.it/eng/); + 2) text analysis, data driven AI, machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, interaction design, human computer + interaction, combinatorics on words, algorithms on strings, data structures and algorithms (Department of Mathematics and Computer + Science, Departmente of Engineering); + 3) Industrial design, theories and methods of Design, including techniques and tools for the representation of its functional and formal + characteristics, and the relationships that are established between the object, the user, and the spatial and environmental context. In the + case of communication artifacts, the professional competences concern the ability to manage and translate complex content into graphic and + infographic systems, based on the correlation of textual and iconographic structures, through the digitalization of tangible and intangible + assets, and their use in the design of digital artifacts (Department of Architecture). + Moreover Palermo University Press, an editing brand for the academic community, supported by a spin-off (New Digital Frontiers), acts + as a digital library serving both electronic publishing of academics and educational materials for lectures + (https://unipapress.com/progetto/). + + + + + 29 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 16.1 OU [1] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + OU Short Name 5 OU Name Dipartimento Culture e Società + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Sicilia Province PALERMO + + Municipality PALERMO Address Viale delle Scienze + + ZIP Code 98128 Street Number 15 + Contact Person + + First name Fabrizio Last name D'Avenia + + Phone number 09123899328 e-mail fabrizio.davenia@unipa.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento Culture e Società - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + Associate Professor of History of Christianity and Churches at the University of Palermo and coordinator of the + Master’s Degree Religions and Cultures. Scientific coordinator at University of Palermo of the Horizon 2020 project + FIT FORTHEM – Fostering Institutional Transformation of R&I Policies in European Universities, Call H2020- + IBA-SwafS-Support-1-2020 (Support for the Research and Innovation Dimension of European Universities), and + leader of WP4 – Connect, access, and share R&I resources, whose goal is to design and develop a Digital Platform + connecting research repositories, research groups and Cultural Heritage items at the partners of European Alliance + FORTHEM: Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz (Germany), Université Dijon Bourgogne (France), Jyvaskylan + Yliopisto (Finland), Uniwersytet Opolski (Poland), Latvijas Universitate (Latvia), Universitat de Valencia (Spain), + Università degli Studi di Palermo (Italy). In 2018 he was Directeur d’Études Associés (DEA) at the Fondation + Maison des Sciences de l’Homme and visiting professor at Sorbonne Université. He is in the Editorial Board of New + Digital Frontiers, Editorial Platform for Electronic and Traditional Publishing and of its book series «Chiese e + Culture e religiose» + + + 16.1 OU [2] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + OU Short Name 6 OU Name Dipartimento di Matematica e + + + + 30 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + Informatica + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Sicilia Province PALERMO + + Municipality PALERMO Address via Archirafi + + ZIP Code 90123 Street Number 34 + Contact Person + + First name Marinella Last name Sciortino + + Phone number 09123891080 e-mail marinella.sciortino@unipa.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + Full Professor of Computer Science, member of the Editorial Board of the scientific journal Theoretical Computer + Science (Elsevier) and of the Scientific Committee of GRIN (Gruppo di Informatica). She is Director of the UNIPA + Research Unit of CINI (Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale per l’Informatica). Her main research interests are: + similarity measures between texts and algorithms for analyzing texts collections, in collaboration with University of + Pisa and Federal University of Uberlândia (Brazil); repetitiveness measures on texts with applications to data + compression, in collaboration with University of Verona and Kyushu University (Japan); design of compressed + structures for indexing big collections of texts, in collaboration with University of Verona and University of South- + Florida (USA). + + + 16.1 OU [3] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + OU Short Name 7 OU Name Dipartimento di Ingegneria + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Sicilia Province PALERMO + + Municipality PALERMO Address Viale delle Scienze + + + + + 31 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + ZIP Code 90128 Street Number 8 + Contact Person + + First name Marco Last name La Cascia + + Phone number 09123862630 e-mail marco.lascia@unipa.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Ingegneria - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering degree (Università degli Studi di Palermo, 1998). From 1996 to 1999 he was a + visiting student, and then a post-doctoral fellow, with the Image and Video Computing Group, in the Computer + Science Department at Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. In 2000 he joined the Faculty of Engineering of + Università degli Studi di Palermo as an assistant professor. Presently, he is a full professor at the same institution. + His main research interests include artificial intelligence, computer vision and text analysis with applications to + multimedia databases, cultural heritage exploitation and distributed video-surveillance systems. He was local + coordinator in several research projects related to image, video and text analysis and he was participant in many + others. He is co-author of more than 100 scientific papers. According to Google Scholar his work had a significant + impact with almost 5000 citations and h-index 28. + + + 16.1 OU [4] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + Dipartimento di + OU Short Name 8 OU Name + Giurisprudenza + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Sicilia Province PALERMO + + Municipality PALERMO Address via Maqueda + + ZIP Code 90134 Street Number 172 + Contact Person + + First name Beatrice Last name Pasciuta + + Phone number 09123892406 e-mail beatrice.pasciuta@unipa.it + + + + + 32 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + multiculturalism in the administrative and legal documents of Norman and Hohenstaufen Sicily, c.1060 c.1266”: + http://krc.orient.ox.ac.uk/documult/. The project partners are University of Oxford and University of Palermo. + DOCUMULT investigates the coexistence of the diverse confessional, ethnic and linguistic communities of the + island of Sicily under its Norman and Hohenstaufen rulers: Arabic speaking Muslims and Jews, Greek Christians, + and Latin Christians. As co-PI she is responsible for the team researchers of the University of Palermo and leads the + Latin team, i.e. the team of researcher specialized on the analysis of Latin Norman documentation. + Project Coordinator of the Erasmus+ KA220 HED project FONTES. FOstering iNnovative Training in the use of + European legal Sources (2021-24). She is responsible for the Project Coordination and Management and in charge + of the first outcome of the project that is the multidisciplinary and interactive training curriculum on the knowledge, + understanding and use of medieval and early-modern legal sources, specifically tailored on Master’s, Doctoral and + post- Doctoral students of historically-oriented subjects. + Coordinator of local unit (University of Palermo) of Religious Precept and Legal Norm. The Life and History of the + Fundamental Dialectic of the Western Legal Tradition (IV-XVII cent.), PRIN 2017), + https://dirittoereligione.uniroma3.it/, which aims to provide new interpretations that lead to different and more + solid comparisons with other civilizations characterized by a pervasive presence of the religion in public life. + + + 16.1 OU [5] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + OU Short Name 9 OU Name Dipartimento di Architettura + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Sicilia Province PALERMO + + Municipality PALERMO Address Viale delle Scienze + + ZIP Code 90128 Street Number 14 + Contact Person + + First name Cinzia Last name Ferrara + + Phone number 3281253241 e-mail cinzia.ferrara@unipa.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Architettura - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + + + 33 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + Architect, Visual Designer, and Associate Professor of Design at the University of Palermo. Deputy coordinator of + the Master’s degree “Design and Culture for the territory”, and delegate to the Communication of the Department + of Architecture (Darch). She has designed the visual identity and signage system of the Darch (2016-present), as well + as those for the Departments of Engineering, Agriculture, Law, and Munipa, the museum of the University of + Palermo. Communication Manager for the Interreg Italy Malta I-Access project (2014-22), she has worked on: 1) + visual identity projects (Teatro Biondo di Palermo, 2013-14; Sicilia Olanda, Catania, 2007; Expa Galleria di + Architettura, Palermo, 2005-06; Cinesicilia, Palermo, 2010); 2) cultural communication projects (UNEA, UNEP, + Nairobi, Kenya, 2014; 10; Biennale di Venezia, Sezione Città-Porto, Palermo, 2006; the exhibition Palermo-Oslo, + Oslo/Palermo, 2005; the Pitrè museum, Palermo, 2007); 3) health communication projects (ISMETT, 2007; FIMP, + Italian Foundation for Research on Pancreas Diseases, 2016); 4) social communication (Colapesce, Giampilieri, + 2010; signage for tent camps, Mirandola, 2012); 5) editorial graphics (Riso Annex for the Riso Museum in Palermo); + 5) design collection (Gea Schirò collection; Design&Contesti collection). She was President (2015-18) and Vice + President (2009-15) of AIAP – Italian Association of Visual Communication Design, and Ambassador of Design in + the world for the Italian Design Day in 2017. She also curates cultural events, conferences, exhibitions, and is the + author of books and essays published in national and international journals and magazines. She is a member of + editorial committees, observers and international design associations (Aiap, Icod, Beda, IIID, Dnem). + + + + + 34 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 17 National and International collaboration + + Coordination and partnerships in international projects: + - CUBATÌ – Culture du bâti de qualité : Recherche, Innovation et Enterprise pour la Durabilité (2020-23), ENI Coopéracion + Transfontalière Italia-Tunisie, coordinator. + - DOCUMULT – “Documenting Multiculturalism: coexistence, law and multiculturalism in the administrative and legal documents of + Norman and Hohenstaufen Sicily, c.1060-c.1266 (2017-23), HORIZON 2020 – Excellent Science - ERC-2017-ADG (2017), + co-coordinator. + - FONTES – FOstering iNnovative Training in the use of European legal Sources”, Erasmus+ KA220 HED (2021-24), + coordinator. + - I-ACCESS – Implementing the accessibility to urban historic center’s use and knowledge (2018-21), INTERREG V-A Italia- + Malta 2014-2020, ASSE 1 OS 1.1, coordinator. + - IDEHA – Innovation for Data Elaboration in Heritage Areas (PNR 2015-20), partner. + - iHERITAGE - ICT Mediterranean platform for UNESCO cultural heritage (2020-23), ENI CBC MEDITERRANEAN + SEA BASIN PROGRAMME 2014/2020 (2019), partner. + - NEPTIS – ICT solutions for fruition and augmented experiencing of cultural heritage (PON R&C 2007-13), partner. + - SILKNOW – Silk heritage in the Knowledge Society: from punched cards to big data, deep learning and visual / tangible simulations + (2018-21), H2020-SC6-CULT-COOP-2017, partner. + - SmartHeritage (PON R&C 2007/2013), partner. + Collaborations: + Aalborg University Copenhagen + AIAP – Associazione nazionale Design della Comunicazione Visiva + CNR-ITD – Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche + Delft University of Technology + DNME – Design Network for Emergency Management + Federal University of Uberlandia + Harvard Medical School + ICAR-CNR – Istituto di Calcolo e Reti ad Alte Prestazioni + ICoD – International Council of Design + IIID – International Institute of Infographic Design + IRCAM Paris + IUAV San Marino e Venezia + KTH Stockholm + Kyushu University + Massachusetts General Hospital + University of South-Florida + ZHdK Zurich + + + + 35 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + ZHdK Zurich + + + + + 36 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 18 Principal investigator for the co-applicant + + 18.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Fabrizio Last name D'Avenia + + Gender Male TAX Code DVNFRZ70M25G273F + + Birth date 25/08/1970 Birth place PALERMO + + Phone number 09123899328 e-mail fabrizio.davenia@unipa.it + + 18.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 18.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 37 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Palermo +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 19 Administrative contact for the co-applicant + + 19.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Luciano Last name Tropea + + Gender Male TAX Code TRPLCN69B04F158V + + Birth date 04/02/1969 Birth place MESSINA + + Phone number 09123893349 e-mail supporto.ricerca@unipa.it + + 19.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 19.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 38 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Torino +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 11 Legal name; Tax code; VAT number, Legal address + + Università degli Studi di + Legal Name Tax code 80088230018 + Torino + + VAT number 02099550010 + Legal address + + Region Piemonte Province TORINO + + Municipality TORINO ZIP Code 10124 + + Address Via Verdi Street number 8 + + + 12 Legal representative: personal data and contacts + + First name Stefano Last name Genua + + Gender Male TAX Code GNESFN65P25L219B + + Birth date 25/09/1965 Birth place TORINO + + Phone number 0116702201 e-mail rettore@unito.it + + + 13 Management and research structure + + UNITO organisational structure is divided into Centres of Responsibility (CR): Divisions, Departments, Centres, other research and + service teaching structures. CRs are autonomous organisational units, which have the resources and are accountable for their proper use + and for achieving their planned objectives (First Level CR). Other structures within a first level CR , have their own resources and + governance (Second Level CR). + First level CR are organised in “Hubs” (“Poli”). Each hub is a Cost Centre with its own analytical accounting system. Cost centre may + also represent aggregates of costs and revenues, useful for the purposes of management control, which do not correspond to any real + organisational unit (e.g. Hubs). Each hub contains a specific Office referring to the competent Division (e.g. Research Office > Research + Division) that guarantees the development and implementation of the services essential for institutional activities (teaching, research and + third mission), in close connection with the indications and objectives indicated by the academic bodies. + The Research Office of each Hub is responsible for the smooth and efficient overall project design and management. Support activities + include Financial & Reporting Management; Legal & Contractual Management; Communication, Planning and Steering. The + Administration and Accounting Office of each Hub manages the activities and administrative accounting services of the (CR) belonging to + the Hub. + + + 39 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Torino +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + the Hub. + UNITO adopted the UGOV IT accounting system for the management of economic-patrimonial aspects, analytical aspects, and to + monitor financial flows. The system clearly identifies and integrates the administrative records in the general accounting model (COGE) + and the analytical accounting model (COAN). + + + 14 Financial Management System + + UNITO primary objectives of accounting system can be summarized as follows: correctly record the economic and analytical information, + both in the estimate and in the final balance; facilitate the drafting of public summary accounting documents and management documents, + and to provide correct information to internal and external stakeholders; facilitate planning and management analysis activities; + + UNITO adopts a single annual balance. The economic-patrimonial accounting is aimed at preparing the single annual balance: a) it only + records events that generate a certain, assimilated or presumed financial variation; b) the administrative facts are observed and accounted + for both recognition of debts/credits, and for recognition of costs/revenues; c) it is an ex post accounting. + Analytical accounting is aimed to detect and control budget availability, and consequently needs an internal authorization step. It’s based + on double-entry general accounting records, and has the task of assigning the measure of a cost or income to a Center of Responsibility. + + U-GOV Accounting module is structured according to: a) the organizational units which correspond to the accounting organizational + structure of the University; b) the economic units which operate in general accounting; c) analytical units which operate in analytical + accounting. + + For the management and reporting of projects, the U-Gov Accounting platform is integrated with a specific module (U-Gov PJ). PJ + module is designed for the management of all research and /or teaching projects promoted on the basis of programs or calls from various + Funding Bodies, third mission activities (e.g. "commercial" activities or non-institutional research). + Projects are referred directly to the Responsibility Centers. Each project/activity is connected to a separate account, identified by a specific + code, permitting to detect and report every single transaction and related documentation. + + + 15 Specific skills of the applicant with respect to this proposal + + Competence of the Torino team in: Near Eastern Archaeology; Cuneiform Philology; Art History; Digital data set; 3D, virtual and + immsersive Archaeology; Network Analysis + + + + + 40 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Torino +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 16.1 OU [1] - Name, location, and contact person + General Information + + OU Short Name 10 OU Name Dipartimento di Studi Storici + + OU Type Department + Address + + Region Piemonte Province TORINO + + Municipality TORINO Address Via Sant’Ottavio + + ZIP Code 10124 Street Number 20 + Contact Person + + First name Stefano Last name De Martino + + Phone number 0116704813 e-mail stefano.demartino@unito.it + + 16.2 OU Dipartimento di Studi Storici - Scientific-technological expertise and experience + + Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e + competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze + Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze Specificità e competenze + + + + + 41 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Torino +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 17 National and International collaboration + + Politecnico Torino; University of Mainz; Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur Mainz; Prado Museum Madrid; Getty Center + Los Angeles; University of Tampa Florida + + + + + 42 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Torino +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 18 Principal investigator for the co-applicant + + 18.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Stefano Last name De Martino + + Gender Male TAX Code DMRSFN55E05D612F + + Birth date 05/05/1955 Birth place FIRENZE + + Phone number 0116704813 e-mail stefano.demartino@unito.it + + 18.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 18.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 43 / 453 + b) CO-APPLICANT - Università degli Studi di Torino +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria A.3 and A.5) + + 19 Administrative contact for the co-applicant + + 19.1 Personal data and contacts + + First Name Monica Last name Cini + + Gender Female TAX Code CNIMNC73T68L219M + + Birth date 28/12/1973 Birth place TORINO + + Phone number 0116704813 e-mail monica.cini@unito.it + + 19.2 Digitally signed CV + (See documents uploaded) + + 19.3 Appointment letter as principal investigator + (See documents uploaded) + + + + + 44 / 453 + Variazione + + + + + 20 Project title and acronym + + Italian Strengthening of the + Project title Project acronym ITSERR + ESFRI RI RESILIENCE + + + 21 Duration of the project (in month) + + Project duration 42 + + + 22 Project type + + (i) Strengthening of an existing RI among those listed in NPRI with high priority + + + 23 Research Infrastructure(s) targeted by the project + + RI : RESILIENCE - Religious Studies Infrastructure: Tools, Innovation, Experts, Connections and + Centers + + ESFRI domain SCI Capofila CNR + + RI Type Social and Cultural Innovation RI priority IR a priorità alta + + + 24 Proposal ESFRI domain + + SCI + + + 26 Free Keyword(s) + + Religious Studies, History, Critical editions, AI Sources Analysis, D. Mining for Humanities, AI Based Philology, Humanities k- + factor + + + + + 45 / 453 + 27 Publishable project abstract + +ITSERR is a project designed according to the needs of the Religious Studies scientific community to support the existing national +infrastructure and bring it to a higher level of maturity, in terms of involvement of technology and ability to increase the innovation, +quality and variety of the knowledge produced by the community of Religious Studies. +ITSERR is based on the postulate that the Humanities can offer superdiverse datasets whose complexity challenges technologies and +ICT scholars. Therefore, the project aims at transforming the scientific community of Religious Studies from being a mere actor in the +implementation of established technologies to the driver of a new match with the new assets of AI/BD/HPC. +The project is implemented to: +- strengthen the RESILIENCE RI in its preparatory phase, through its national institutional dimension, scientific positioning, +technical development and public perception; +- support excellence by putting the more qualified scholars and researchers in Religious Studies and ICT at the service of the excellence +in research in Religious Studies, producing disruptive innovation for the domain; +- advance efficiency with the improvement of the accessibility to data, facilities and experts belonging to the national context and +promoting data FAIRness; +- expand the RI national network of researchers, users and stakeholders, and be able to translate the national experience on other +national contexts and at the European level; +- enhance operativity by offering new services and tools that are ready to be accessed by the end of the project and can thus rapidly enable +new research scenarios and +- attract scholarship, research and industry to leverage the Italian scientific community of Religious Studies towards a more innovation- +oriented research methodology. + + + + + 46 / 453 + 28 Extended abstract + + +1. Context analysis +The ESFRI Roadmap 2021 identifies RESILIENCE (Religious Studies Infrastructure: Tools, Innovation, Experts, Connections +and Centers) as a new project belonging to the thematic area of Social and Cultural Innovation. Led by Fondazione per le scienze +religiose (FSCIRE, Bologna-Palermo, Italy), RESILIENCE is a interdisciplinary and distributed Research Infrastructure for +Religious Studies, building a high-performance platform, supplying tools and services for scholars studying religions in their different +forms and in their diachronic and synchronic variety. It supplies access to digital and physical data on religion and to advanced tools in +knowing and understanding these data, and thus facilitates high-quality research concerning religion all over Europe and beyond. +The Concept and Design of RESILIENCE have been built on several steps, both at national and European level. Concerning the +European level, the consortium partners are the drivers, among others, of: +- INFRAIA ReIReS starting community, lead by FSCIRE as the first step towards the construction of a distributed RI; +- European Academy of Religion launched and lead by FSCIRE and established by 506 universities (2015-) as an exchange +platform for scholars, universities, centres, research infrastructures, scientific journals and publishers coming from Europe and the +surrounding regions; +- Questionnaire submitted for the 2018 ESFRI Roadmap, bringing to the recognition of the RI as a project addressing the High +strategic potential area for research in S&C Innovation; +- INFRADEV EP RESILIENCE, led by FSCIRE and contributing to the conclusion of the design phase and the definition +and consolidation of the RI project. +Through FSCIRE and InfAI - Institut für Angewandte Informatik, RESILIENCE participated to WP9 - Data communities of +SSHOC - Social Sciences & Humanities Open Cloud. +RESILIENCE runs through its Preparation Phase from 2022 to 2025. +None of these proposals could have been successful without the strong political support of the MS/AS Governments, the national role +and the international reputation of FSCIRE as well as the input and cooperation of other European Research Infrastructures, like +DARIAH, CLARIN, E-RIHS and EOSC, to which RESILIENCE contributes as an infrastructure and though its partners, +and which offered to RESILIENCE their expertise and experience. +At the National level, FSCIRE is recognised by the Italian Ministry for University and Research [MUR] research infrastructure for +religious studies since 2014, it entered the National Research Plan in 2015, and to guarantee its functioning MUR annually allocates +to FSCIRE a part of Fondo Ordinario per gli Enti e le Istituzioni di Ricerca [FOE]. The allocation is managed by Consiglio +Nazionale delle Ricerche [CNR]. +Additionally: +- in 2016 and 2020 FSCIRE signed with MUR a programme agreement (accordo di programma) on a 5-years project aiming at the +strengthening of the RESILIENCE RI towards its inclusion into the ESFRI Roadmap (2016) and supporting, among others, the +Preparatory Phase of RESILIENCE (2020); +- in 2019 FSCIRE established with MUR a protocol (protocollo) aiming at the consolidation of the RESILIENCE RI in its hub +in Palermo; +- in 2021 Italian Law endorsed FSCIRE for the establishment of RESILIENCE and its hub in Southern Italy + + + + 47 / 453 + Finally, in 2021, MUR published the National Plan for Research Infrastructures (PNIR), where RESILIENCE is recognised as +a High-Priority RI, giving to the CNR a role for the first phase of the national plan. + +2. Pre-project scenario +The national research infrastructure operates through FSCIRE facilities in Bologna and Palermo, where the scientific community has +access to 1Mil tomes in Bologna and 246K tomes in Palermo; 3800 journals; the historical Archives (including the only papal +deposited archive out of the Vatican), declared of historical interest by the Ministry of Culture Administration in 1995; a guesthouse +in both cities and a team of 50+ researchers and fellows working on the History of Christianity, on the History and Doctrines of +Islam and nurturing scientific networks, association, projects at the national, European and international level. +The ability of the existing RI to scale-up to a significantly different, improved and enlarged structure has been demonstrated at the end +of the first programme agreement with MUR for the years 2016-2020, whose measurable results are summarised as follows (numbers +refer to the years 2016 and 2020): + 1. Research and technical personnel: from 31 to 70 units + 2. Scientific institutional cooperation programmes: from 21 to 54 + 3. Library purchases: from 500 to 4052 + 4. Journal and e-resources subscriptions: from 509 to 827 + 5. Access to library and archives: from 4200 to a peak of 4650 (pre-covid19) + 6. Total number of pages written, reviewed, revised, published, presented: from 3194 to 7459 +FSCIRE has a long record of cooperation with the Department of Humanities and Education of the University of Modena and +Reggio Emilia, and a more recent but promising relationship (2017-) with the University of Palermo, both in terms of research projects +and educational programmes. Thanks to the opportunity offered by ITSERR, a collaboration with the University of Naples +“L’Orientale” and University of Turin allows the infrastructure to enlarge its reach and disciplinary complexity. +Moreover, the analysis conducted by RESILIENCE on the user needs during its design phase allows ITSERR to address directly +and effectively the scientific community of religious studies at the European and national level. The users’ needs analysis points to the +several desiderata, summarised as follows: + 1. Inter-institutional cooperation to grant coordination in offering access to local resources, including experts; + 2. Development of common ontologies/vocabularies and semantics/data models for research in Religious Studies; + 3. Development of tools specific to Religious Studies, aligning the digital development of Religious Studies research with other, also +non-SSH, fields; + 4. Development of common research data standards (especially multilingual metadata standards) for Religious Studies, to make +research FAIR-compliant and to ensure that newly integrated data is FAIR-by-design; + +3. Most important changes and impact on the existing RI +The first and most important change that the project aims at producing is in the postulates that usually drive humanities-based projects: +the scientific community of Religious Studies will be transformed from being a mere actor in the implementation of established +technologies to the driver of a new match with the new assets of AI/BD/HPC. Humanities can offer superdiverse datasets whose +complexity challenge technologies and ICT scholars. + + + + 48 / 453 + complexity challenge technologies and ICT scholars. +The main changes expected by ITSERR are: +a stronger RESILIENCE RI, through its national institutional dimension, scientific positioning, technical development and public +perception; +higher levels of scientific excellence as an outcome of the combination of the qualified scholars and researchers in Religious Studies and +ICT that work at the service of disruptive innovation in Religious Studies; +advancement in the efficiency of research development and access to its sources and tools, with the improvement of the accessibility to +data, facilities and experts belonging to the national context and promoting data FAIRness; +expansion of the RI network of researchers, users and stakeholders; +enhancement of the RI operativity by offering new services and tools that are ready to be used by the end of the project and can thus +rapidly enable new research scenarios; +attraction of scholarship, research and industry to leverage the Italian scientific community of Religious Studies towards a more +innovation-oriented research methodology. +The expected impact of these changes on the existing RI is: +strengthening of scientific and operational synergies between the headquarters of the RI in Bologna and Palermo, through the scientific +and technical resources located at Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione, ISTI - CNR, the faculties and departments +involved by the co-applicants and other scientific entities which can boost their research potential in favour of the RI; +a booster in the Preparatory Phase of RESILIENCE, which will largely benefit of the great majority of the work conducted by +ITSERR and therefore will have to adjust its planning accordingly, significantly speeding its technical development; +translation of the national experience on other national contexts where RESILIENCE is or will be present, as a best practice; +consolidation of the leading role of FSCIRE in RESILIENCE. + +4. Proposed actions, their implementation and possible critical issues +The actions of ITSERR are developed according to the following clusters: +AC1. Implementation of a project management structure that allows a full-cycle effective coordination of governance, scientific and +technical operation, human resources, communication activities and impact assessment; +AC2. Establishment of the spine of all RESILIENCE services, the data centre; +AC3. Development of 2 toolkits and 9 tools/services to be delivered to the scientific community by the end of the project; +AC4. Involvement of new sources (i.e. human resources, cases) of potential research and development from the scientific community with +a Trans-National Access programme; +AC5. Ensuring a proper management of infrastructure data with a dedicated Data Management Plan, and a full-fledged support of +FAIR-by-design principles coherent the RESILIENCE DMP. +The implementation of the actions is assigned to 12 Work Packages whose activities aim at the return of the investment made on +RESILIENCE towards the scientific community and the Italian research and innovation system (universities, research centres, +private sector). +AC1 is implemented through WP1, aiming at implementing and monitoring all structures and functions that enable the regular +functioning of the RI, here including also human resources, communication activities and impact evaluation of the whole process, on the + + + + 49 / 453 + functioning of the RI, here including also human resources, communication activities and impact evaluation of the whole process, on the +infrastructure itself but most importantly on its socio-economic context. +AC2 is implemented in WP2: it develops the RESILIENCE data service centre that enables both the services developed in +ITSERR and in RESILIENCE. Considering that the Preparatory Phase of RESILIENCE runs exactly during the years of the +ITSERR project, it is important to build common structures and ensure their sustainability in the long run. +AC3 runs through WP3 to WP10, which are structured to deliver highly specialised services to the scientific community to bring it +from the role of actor in the implementation of established technologies to the driver of a new match between the new assets of +AI/BD/HPC and the humanities. This set of WPs and the services that they deliver are built with the only purpose of achieving +disruptive innovation in the domain of Religious Studies: significantly improving the quality of the research conducted, enabling research +hypotheses and options which could not be foreseeable without the help of intelligent machines. +AC4 concentrates its activities in WP11, where a Trans-National Access programme is developed and implemented to guarantee +access to the RI. A full TNA programme, with good records, has been already developed during the ReIReS project and is currently +under development in RESILIENCE, thus ITSERR will benefit from both experiences and add a significant contribution in terms +of complexity (including teams) and research (including research conducted with ITSERR working teams). +AC5 is implemented in WP12, where a detailed Data Management Plan (DMP) is designed to ensure that all data hosted on +ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR in accordance to the EOSC interoperability framework. In addition, WP12 designs and updates data +modelling strategies that are relevant for the whole domain of Religious Studies, in accordance with the ISTERR mission of spreading +knowledge within an open, FAIR and interoperable ecosystem. +The critical issues that may emerge during the implementation of the actions mostly rely on: + - the complexity of the management of different Operational Units located in different context and raised, until now, with a siloed +approach + - the timing of aims and objectives, which must be aligned and run in a short term; + - the length of procedures imposed by the Italian public administration to hire the human resources requested by the project; + - the presence (or lack of) the human resources needed by the project on the job market + +5. Post-project scenario +At the end of the project the RI: + - Serves a public plan of research development with a model of fertile integration between public and private research entities sharing +public, innovation-driven research objectives + - Serves a scientific community whose research landscape is drastically changed, finally being able to make experiments and produce +knowledge with multi-lingual, multi-format big data; + - Has contributed to the consolidation of the Italian scientific leadership and excellence in the domain of Religious Studies, expressed +and channelled by FSCIRE both at national and European levels; + - Works with an interdisciplinary new generation of scholars whose training with new/other research methodologies and shared +experience can be translated to the higher European level and sustained by RESILIENCE + - Is ready to offer physical and digital services that are fully operational and available for use and re-use to the whole scientific +community of religious studies and the private sector + + + + 50 / 453 + community of religious studies and the private sector + - Looks inside the area of European MS/AS but also beyond that boundaries, towards the Southern shore of the Mediterranean to +attract excellence where it is located and establish cooperation projects on research and development + +6. Expected results and their impact +R1: The IR produces disruptive innovation in Religious Studies by using new technologies and machines beyond the state of the art of +Digital Humanities +I1: Scientific: The scientific community adopts new methodologies and tools, and new interdisciplinary perspectives coming from IT and +engineering;Improvement of the quality of the research conducted through the RI, reflected in the career progress of the research and +technical personnel; attraction of researchers of other nationalities/territories +Societal: Increased awareness of research-based information on religions; Italy’s understanding and guidance of the European (digital) +transformation process in humanities +Economic: companies are interested in developing, testing and/or re-using the technologies and in the human resources that contributed +to making them. +R2: the IR attracts industry as user +I2: ITSERR impacts business development for those activities that are relevant for companies working in the field of security because, +like in other domains, they have at their disposal data and data sets where hermeneutic has a specific place in discourse and +normativity +R3: PhD students are trained in a interdisciplinary framework and team, whose work is output-driven and knowledge-driven +I3: Scientific: increase of research excellence in a new generation of scholars and researchers which is able to challenge technology sciences +to solve questions coming from the humanities +Economic: the academic job market adapts to the new trained figures not to miss the opportunity given by the investment made +R4: ITSERR develops tools and softwares with an immediate application in research +I4: Scientific: RESILIENCE sustains further developments and is able to allocate its funds on additional activities, also market +oriented; knowledge advances towards enabling state of the art technologies and re-use in tangential disciplines (the specificities of +Religious Studies create challenges also for non-SSH disciplines) +Economic: Market and industries are interested in the RI outcomes; already existing or newly establi + + + + + 51 / 453 + 29 Objectives and ambition + + +ITSERR is an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen and scale-up the leading role of Italy in RESILIENCE, leaded by +FSCIRE, and enhance the cooperation with CNR and Universities, increasing RESILIENCE scientific and socio-economic impact +in the regions where it operates, building stronger relations with RIs operating in the Italian context through hubs and nodes, and +ensuring its complete sustainability at the end of the project, through the European RI. + +This general objective takes shape in the complementarity of the scientific profiles of the institutions involved in ITSERR, along with +FSCIRE and the RESILIENCE RI: UNIMORE with knowledge and expertise on the History of Christianity, Big Data and +AI, UNIPA with competences on languages and cultures, law and ICT, UNITO focussing on Archaeology and Ancient History +and UNIOR on the long tradition of study and encounter with Mediterranean, African and Oriental histories, languages and +cultures. +In its strategic aspects, the general objective is handled by the governance of the project and ensured in its operational aspects by WP1- +Project Management, which is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the project to +achieve its objectives. + +The project is built to strengthen all infrastructural elements that enable research conducted by the scientific community of Religious +Studies and to mark a leap forward, driving a larger set of humanities. This objective is reached starting from innovation challenges +coming from the research domain, for which the project looks for already existing technological solutions that can be adapted or new +solutions that must be designed and developed according to the needs and objectives of the research community. This is the rationale +describing the work conducted in WPs 2 to 10 and WP12. +While WP2 offers Datacenter services including storage, processing power, databases, networking, analytics and software applications +over the internet, and WP12 is dedicated to Data Management, WP3 to 10 are designed to deliver services to the scientific community +while strengthening trans-versal aspects such findability, accessibility, interoperability, and re-use of data. +Services move from a use case in Religious Studies and go through 6 phases: analysis, scientific preparation, development, test, operation +and post-operation. All cases already present a re-use case based on different scientific premises and applied to different disciplines. +WP3 develops T-ReS, a toolkit of software specifically designed and optimised for the domain of Religious Studies, aimed at +empowering researchers with up-to-date, user-friendly and sustainable tools that take full advantage of the RESILIENCE research +infrastructure ecosystem. The toolkit includes CRITERION, a software for creating critical editions of primary sources, and +GNORM, a software for the automatic analysis and categorisation of printed religious normative sources through data mining +techniques and providing a 3D visualisation of the analysed sources. +WP4 develops DaMSym (Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum), which is intended as a software tool for applying +text understanding techniques to the investigation of semantic textual issues, with the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan +Creed as a case study, adopting a connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large- +scale learning and Digital Humanities. It aims to bring together cultural, historical and theological factors in order to produce a new +type of semantic analysis tool capable of producing novel, domain-related knowledge by analysing a corpus and providing scholars with +new insights. + + + + 52 / 453 + WP5 takes part in an already existing project aiming at the development of Digital Maktaba (in Arabic "maktaba", "library") +whose aim is to establish procedures for the extraction, management of libraries and archives and to develop virtuous models in the field +of cataloguing that can accommodate texts written in non-Latin alphabets, starting with the case of the Arabic alphabet and testing it +also with other alphabets. DM is born in the framework of RESILIENCE because it is intended to offer a helpful and innovative +service to libraries specialised in religious studies that need to manage cultural heritage data in non-latin alphabets. +WP6 develops YASMINE, a visual-semantic metascraper that combines semantic and mapping layers in order to extract knowledge +from a specific site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific processing. +YASMINE incorporates the ability of scraping and enriching visual and audio data, by using Computer Vision and Artificial +Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that is converted into metadata. YASMINE is designed for two +case-studies that are unique to religious studies: sanctuaries and the killings of orants (1982-). +WP7 develops REVER, a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles +(the regesta) to the documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a +regestum, by applying to documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it is different from +existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the +contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. +WP8, uBIQUity, intends to develop a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible +and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. Intertextual references, +whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the sacred +texts “ubiquitous”. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the +“collective memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. +WP9, TAURUS, has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and +materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally +applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains three such instruments: EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: +tablets from the Near East; MiRAr – Mixed Reality for Archaeology; ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. The +tools developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope and +application. +WP10, ReTINA, aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive +dedicated to complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it +uses texts from the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. +Finally, WP11 is built to ensure Trans-National Access both to facilities, services and experts already in place and running and to +the ITSERR research and working teams. + +The scientific leadership of the whole project reflects the pivotal role of Religious Studies (which dates back to the Leibniz edition of the +Reimarus Fragments) in the implementation of the project activities, as the development of tools and services is guided by the purpose of +giving answers to needs and hypotheses emerging from the scientific community, which finds in other disciplines, such as IT and +engineering the complementary knowledge and competence to reach the ITSERR goals. + + + + + 53 / 453 + 30 Project framework and main expected impact + + +The scientific impact of RESILIENCE as an RI is both quantitative and qualitative: the RI offers not only access to a wide and +ever-enlarging data sets for the study of religions, but most importantly works towards the strengthening of the scientific excellence, +improvement of the research conditions and leverage of the quality of research conducted in the European Research Area and beyond, +functioning as a pole of attraction for users all over the world. In the Italian context, researchers will be encouraged to move towards the +institutions composing the RI. + +This is made possible also by the services offered by ITSERR, which helps primarily scholars but also other users to access data and +conduct research. ITSERR offers a fertile environment which stimulates the production of interdisciplinary, international and +intercultural knowledge about religion that is able to challenge the assumptions of frontier science such as Quantum Science and +AI science. Religious Studies are a cross-disciplinary domain and through the RI it is possible to challenge a conception of siloed +research boundaries and of limited fields of application, also in society. + +Access is key to this purpose, as ITSERR impacts on the community by: +- reducing the obstacles in the transnational access to the resources for Religious Studies, with the establishment of a central hub as +entrance point to distributed resources such as manuscripts, experts, devices; +- enhancing the onsite and online access to digitised resources, thanks to a large TNA programme; +- increasing the mobility of scholars who need to conduct their research on the resources consulted onsite and contributing to the +digitisation of resources. As mobility has a long-enduring and visible impact on the research quality of the community if and only when +it is supported by local peers and experts, funds, and co-projected dissemination activities, ITSERR, in cooperation with the whole +RESILIENCE RI, will invest in the provision of such services. + +The impact ITSERR expects to have on ECONOMY AND INNOVATION is: +On the territory: by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between Northern and Southern Italy, the RI brings capital and +investments in equal shares, consolidating already existing research-to-business relationships but also creating new ones, especially in the +direction business-to-research and in the city of Palermo and the surrounding areas, where the 40% of the project is allocated; +On business: transforming research and prototypes into usable products for research in Religious Studies, and seeking for business +opportunities enabling the adaptation of its tools, solutions, and software beyond the narrowly defined academic scope, remaining open +for further re-use in other research areas or industries. University spin-offs can be a solution, and the RESILIENCE German +partner InFAI can be the right driver; +On methodologies: +introducing significant innovations in the research of the Religious Studies, reframing and redefining its academic model towards the +Information Technologies, with a direct impact on the digital transformation of the community. Such an impact on scholars is made +possible by the training activities and the provision of services, which allow the community to move from a digitisation-centred approach +to a full digital choice; +Providing long-term data preservation for further use by future generations, simultaneously ensuring its FAIR-design to impact on the + + + + 54 / 453 + publishing practices in the field of Religious Studies and enhance the re-use of existing data; +- On inclusivity: supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from +accessing resources within the European Research Area, from inside and outside the EU boundaries, challenging the private sector +where languages (both ancient and contemporary) whose knowledge is less widespread and tend to be under-represented. +- On Public and Private institutions: providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale +infrastructural components and smaller projects. Such an activity impacts in particular the different levels of government in charge of the +application of the Smart Specialisation Strategy. +- On Green options: enhancing the economic and scientific efficiency of its users by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the +research (finding resources, mobility, training) through increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research +performance. This is particularly relevant for independent scholars, PhD students and early career scholars. + +The impact ITSERR wants to achieve for SOCIETY is: +- Increasing the awareness of research-based information on religions, thus contributing to spreading knowledge about religious +pluralism in Italy and all over the world, its challenges, opportunities, and paradoxes. +- Contributing to a pan-European scientific platform, bringing together researchers and experts whose knowledge, competence, and +expertise, coupled with the necessary technology, will help to better understand the relevance of religion in dynamic social and +demographic processes, and support the building of an inclusive, open, and respectful society; +- Increasing the discoverability of religion-related resources for, among others, citizens, faith communities, school students and teachers; +publishing companies (esp. interested in textbooks); public officers dealing with migration, prison systems, ethics; police forces. + +The impact ITSERR wants to achieve for the policy makers is facilitating the understanding of society through scientific evidence, +which is important in cases where conflict and hate can target or arise from a faith based community or its ideological self- +representation. ITSERR impacts on: +- Decision- and policy- makers through the dissemination of knowledge on how religion affects, challenges, and advances the shaping of +people’s values, choices and habits; +- Italy’s understanding and guidance of the European (digital) transformation process in humanities; +The creation of synergies at local, national and European level between private and public institutions (such as universities, research +centres, GLAMs) providing and preserving cultural heritage material in the field of Religious Studies. + +The impact ITSERR wants to have on the HUMAN RESOURCES sector is: +- Creating an entirely new category of employees in the Italian scientific landscape able to deal with the infrastructural aspects of the +Religious Studies domain at the partner’s level but also in the different levels of public administration. This is particularly true for +scholars belonging to the Religious studies community, with a previous educational or professional path rooted both in the humanities +and the IT, engineering and physical sciences. +- Enhancing the findability of expertise-providers in the domain of Religious Studies and increasing the involvement of the researchers +linked to the RI as potential experts in their field of specialisation, leveraging their capability to serve both public and private sectors. +- Improving and developing the competences and skills of its users, as well as increasing their professional capital and supporting their + + + + 55 / 453 + - Improving and developing the competences and skills of its users, as well as increasing their professional capital and supporting their +position in the academic job market. Particularly, it helps disseminate the latest IT solutions for Religious Studies in the community; +thus, it has the potential to become an economic factor of attraction for companies willing to cooperate with the RI. + + + + + 56 / 453 + 31 Compliance/consistency with NRRP rules and constrains + + 31.1 Sustainability of the initiative + + 31.1.1 Awareness of project timing + +ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and skills, intersected with +the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have been chosen on the basis of the scientific +excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding +them. +The maintenance of the balance between these elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1 and our management strategy encompasses: +● Efficient Management Costs: by optimising the administrative burden, ITSERR is ready to use contract and services management +processes whenever needed, such as sourcing and invoicing compliant with the Ministry requirements; +● Researcher Oriented Infrastructure: fully compliant and integrated with RESILIENCE RI’s vision of the services to researchers in +Religious Studies. ITSERR will also reuse RESILIENCE and other RIs' services when possible and where appropriate to create +synergies and optimise cost and efficiency; +● Organisational scalability and robustness: ITSERR proposes a management model that could be scaled up or down to fulfil with the +maximum quality a high volume of activities; +● Staffing resilience: All management members will have a back-up staff identified who can taken-up a management role in case of an +increase in activity or absence of personnel; +● Proactive management: ITSERR will not be satisfied to simply collect research requirements and fulfil them. We will ensure that all +opportunities to improve the RI and better serve the research community will be properly identified, analysed, documented, mitigated, +monitored, and controlled. +● Constrained by Service Level Agreement: Since ITSERR team wants to exceed the expectations for this contract, we have defined a +quite pertinent set of Key Performance Indicators for our contract delivery processes, deliverables and services. + + 31.1.2 List of critical risks + +Actual costs exceed budgeted costs [Likelihood: Low][Severity:High] +Strict monitoring of costs with respect to progress +Request extra inkind effort from partners +Increase external co-funding + +Delays in issuing project deliverables [Likelihood: Medium][Severity: Medium] +Adopt Agile methods for faster adaptability +Implement early warning mechanism. +Monthly progress review + +Loss of digital data [Likelihood: Low][Severity: High] + + + + 57 / 453 + Use fault-tolerant cloud services (ie CINECA) +Store digital data in storages hosted in separate locations +Sensitive data are subject to version control and back-up policy. +Passwords to have access to key data are stored in secured shared password wallets. + +Unavailability of personnel [Likelihood: High][Severity: Medium] +Identification of key personnel +Each key person has a backup trained for cases of staff replacement + +Physical gatherings not possible [Likelihood: High][Severity: Medium] +Replace physical attendances by videoconferencing +Invest into digital/remote working paradigm hardware and software + +Conflict among ITSERR partners [Likelihood: Medium][Severity: Low] +Escalation path through project entities to treat project issues +Implement measures of early warning. +Divert activities to partners able to implement them. +Pressure on partner (ie: costs transfers) if recurrent problems. + + 31.1.3 Economic ad financial plan for the operation of the infrastructure(s) as resulting from the +project, for at least ten years starting from the final payment + +ITSERR proposes three economic plans allowing different levels of sustainability to the project results from a realistic commitment to +ambitious. +●Basic sustainability: as the RESILIENCE RI CEO is a member of the board, ITSERR has already discussed and agreed that the +Hosting of all project deliverables (documentation, training material, publications, source code and binaries of software developed by +ITSERR team) as well as the operational maintenance of the system (i.e. software systems but also datasets)services will be ensure for the +coming 10 years. Team members of RESILIENCE RI will be ready to take over right after the end of this project in terms of +knowledge and skills and RESILIENCE RI will budget 500.000K€ (for 10 years) to that scope. +●Passive sustainability: In extra to the basic sustainability, and as our results are FAIR and published as Open Science, ITSERR has +the desire to leverage on the Digital Humanity research community as well as upon various Open Source software development +communities to keep disseminating, improving and exploiting the results of this contract. To this end, our plan is to maintain our presence +on the various RI marketplaces, organise events (i.e. software hackathon, conference organisations/participations, etc.), give training and +support the researchers willing to use RESILIENCE RI technologies and services. ITSERR plans to co-fund with several partner +institutions, 2 FTE over 10 years to animate the various research and technological communities. Budget: ca. 1M€ over 10 years +●Ambitious sustainability: Our plans have been restricted to the duration of 30 months of the PNRR but our researchers' ambition was +going well further! With the expertise of our researchers and technologists, ITSERR accumulated ideas, new concepts and innovations to +keep us going for at least the coming 10 years. To that respect, and starting with a scaled down organisational and delivery model, the + + + + 58 / 453 + maintenance of material and a reduced but performant staffing, ITSERR would be able to keep evolving its innovative WPs well beyond +the deliverables proposed for this contract. Budget: ca. 2.1M€ per year + + 31.1.3.1 Managements Costs + + (See documents uploaded) + + 31.1.3.2 Revenues + + (See documents uploaded) + +31.2 Brief analysis related to DNSH principle + +The RI has no or insignificant foreseeable impact on the environmental objectives as per Article 17 of the Taxonomy Regulation. +As highlighted in the RESILIENCE Design study, data for religious studies will unlikely become totally digital and remotely accessible, +due to legal, material and geographical constraints. Nonetheless, ITSERR is committed to the pursuit of green solutions both for the +development and access to the RI. The main “green options” adopted by ITSERR are: +-reduction of travel costs: +a) allowing a quota of remote access to the TNA grantees contributing to the development work of the RI; +b) contributing not only to the digitisation of objects but to the opportunity to handle and study them in an extended network of other +related sources, accessible and interlinked; +c) development of technologies that allow scientific cooperation on same data from facilities that are remote from the place of data collection; +-break with the rule of reducing development costs for the sake of longer computational time by implementing technologies that focus on +minimal computing +-reduction of hardware use and help in maintaining outcome quality with the application of algorithmic optimisation of technologies, +-optimisation of acquisition, maintenance and dismission costs of data processing by making use of already existing computational centers, +as much as it is allowed by the time-constraints of the project. + +31.3 Brief analysis to FAIR principle + +Surveys carried out by the RESILIENCE infrastructure demonstrate that although researchers in Religious Studies are aware of the +existence of certain data management solutions and tools, they do not very actively look into using them. At an European level, +RESILIENCE is committed to filling this gap by providing trainings and guidelines that direct scholars to community best practices and +useful data management solutions, by offering a common framework of support and guidelines for FAIR-ification of data and/or for +production of FAIR data right from the start, within the field of Religious Studies. +In this context, ITSERR is both an asset and a stakeholder for RESILIENCE, since it benefits from the European research +infrastructure, but it also contributes to enhancing it with new challenges and new potential solutions for spreading the use of FAIR data. +On a more practical level, the design of ITSERR in its WPs is meant to maximise coherence of the data, metadata, software and +processes produced or used by the projects: as explained in WP1, a key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR (findable, +etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. Of course RI users are the only ones + + + + 59 / 453 + accountable for the data they produce, but recourse to open standards, both in publications and other outputs (data, software etc.) is +strongly encouraged by ITSERR wherever applicable. In addition, the implementation of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, +Reusable) compliant practices will be mandatory for all research data stored by ITSERR users/researchers and, obviously, ITSERR +produces a Data Management Plan (DMP) designed to ensure that all data hosted on the ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR and +interoperable in the sense of the EOSC interoperability framework. +For this reason, each WP where data is produced goes through analysis and preparation phases where data sources are analysed, with the +aim of directing WP activities toward maximised use and production of FAIR-compliant data and metadata. Where databases are +created as part of WP activities, they are created respecting FAIR principles. On one hand, this provides the significant advantage of +populating the European research ecosystem with more FAIR data; on the other hand, this allows to build experience on a domain where +the application of FAIR principles is still relatively unexplored, such as that of Religious Studies: this experience is then re-employed in +updating and improving the training activities on FAIR data described in WP12. +All these operations are carried out by making the widest possible use of FAIR existing data and repositories, avoiding any unnecessary +operation (such as re-inventing the wheel) and taking instead the maximum possible advantage from the European infrastructure +ecosystem, especially as far as FAIR data is concerned. + +31.4 Gender equality plan + +The RESILIENCE RI already adopted a Human Resources policy that includes diversity as a key value. To promote diversity, it +supports consortium partners in including non-discrimination provisions in their HR policies, prohibiting discrimination against staff in +any way on the basis of gender, age, ethnic, national or social origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation, language, disability, political +opinion, social or economic condition. Gender balance is encouraged also and especially within decision-making bodies. +The applicant has adopted a Gender Equality Plan on May the 10th, 2022 (PIANO PER LA PARITÀ DI GENERE 2022- +2024). The plan is available at: https://www.cnr.it/it/trasparenza/delibere-cda/documento/113093. All co-applicants already +adopted a GEP. The RESILIENCE and co-applicant’s GEP principles are translated also in ITSERR, where attention will be +payed to gender equality especially in the distribution of key roles and responsibilities. + +The integration of the Gender perspective in ITSERR particularly focuses on: +-Eliminating the gender pay gap, which requires the balancing of the role of women in all professional profiles involved in the project and +in their professional progress; +-Ensuring gender balance in the decision-making bodies of the project, at the local and national level; +-Supporting work-life balancing with the adoption of the agile methodology and project management tools that allow async work and +support efficient time-allocation and effort distribution; +-Enhancing the gender perspective in the research conducted within the project and in TNA, giving higher scores to projects that +a)have a woman group leader or principal investigator +b)present a gender balance within the research team; +c)includes a specific focus on gender issues. +-Facing and contrasting gender violence. + + + + + 60 / 453 + 31.5 Synergies with other proposals within the recovery and resilience plan + +ITSERR is one of several projects proposed by CNR, whose coordinating role is crucial in establishing synergies between SSH-based RIs, +but also with RIs belonging to other scientific domains. ITSERR is will integrate data, methods and services developed in institutions +working on the domain of Religious Studies and will make them available to the whole scientific community of SSH. Therefore, some +natural synergies with the following PNRR proposals are envisaged: + +●H2IOSC. H2IOSC will federate several Research Infrastructures in the field Digital Humanities, with whom ISTI CNR, scientific +coordinator of ITSERR, has already cooperated in past projects (PARTHENOS, e-RIHS PP). The cooperation will continue in the +course of the ITSERR project by making the ITSERR data, tools and services visible within the H2IOSC Marketplace, opening an +interoperability window where members of either of RI can access the resources of the other. +●Open-IT. The native integration between Open-it and ITSERR (the Scientific Coordinators belong to the same Institute and have a +long history of cooperation) gives to both the RI advantages: from one side ITSERR inherits innovative and efficient open science services, +an in the other side Open-it gets a window on religious studies which may serve attracting users. +●FOSSR. An analogous approach will be followed with regard to the FOSSR project. ITSERR will make its data, tools and services +visible to FOSSR, if possible through the H2IOSC for obvious economy, so that members of either of RI can access the resources of the +other. + +Concerning the general framework of PNRR, ITSERR foresees synergies also in: +●[ex PNRR as adopted by MUR] Partenariati estesi, and especially on the n.5, Cultura umanistica e patrimonio culturale come +laboratori di innovazione e creatività, contributing to the sustainability of places, spaces and environments through the advancement of +interdisciplinary research and dialogue, and through the development of technologies that address the challenges of Religious Studies, such +as multi-linguality, sacred text hermeneutics, reconstruction of memory. +●[ex national PNRR] Missione 5 - Interventi speciali per la coesione territoriale, strengthening the quality of already-existing services, +structures, facilities and competences, and attracting new investments in the Southern regions (Campania and Sicilia in primis) +[ex national PNRR] Missione 1 - Digitalizzazione, innovazione, competitività, cultura e turismo, supporting the enhancement of +cultural heritage through the facilitation of access to its resources and the contribution to the capacity building of Italian GLAM +institutions. + +ITSERR foresees synergies also with the proposed Dottorato di Interesse Nazionale in Studi Religiosi [DINSR]. Most universities +participating into DINSR benefit from PNRR funds specifically allocated for PhD scholarships. + + + + + 61 / 453 + 32 Total budget for the proposal + +32.1 Entire project costs + COSTS (€) + ENTIRE PROJECT + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + + a. Fixed term + personnel 2.479.625,00 1.946.775,00 4.426.400,00 + specifically hired + for the project + + b. Scientific + instrumentation + and technological 7.603.341,80 5.470.568,02 13.073.909,82 + equipment, + software licenses + and patent + + c. Open Access, + Trans National + Access, FAIR 245.000,00 344.500,00 589.500,00 + principle + implementation + + d. Civil infrastructures 200.000,00 0,00 200.000,00 + and related systems + + e. Indirect costs, + including running 800.669,94 649.800,06 1.450.470,00 + costs + + f. Training activities 910.175,68 1.521.015,00 2.431.190,68 + + Total 12.238.812,42 9.932.658,08 22.171.470,50 + + + + + 62 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 465.000,00 296.387,44 761.387,44 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 1.820.013,00 169.602,09 1.989.615,09 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 177.255,46 40.091,77 217.347,23 + costs + +f. Training activities 247.207,91 106.750,00 353.957,91 + +Total 2.709.476,37 612.831,30 3.322.307,67 + + + + + 63 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 64 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [2 - Data Centre Services] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 0,00 0,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 1.680.444,40 0,00 1.680.444,40 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 117.631,11 0,00 117.631,11 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 1.798.075,51 0,00 1.798.075,51 + + + + + 65 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 66 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [12 - Data Management Services] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 0,00 0,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 312.197,40 0,00 312.197,40 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 21.853,82 0,00 21.853,82 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 334.051,22 0,00 334.051,22 + + + + + 67 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 68 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 277.500,00 110.412,56 387.912,56 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 984.250,04 142.197,09 1.126.447,13 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 102.477,04 33.524,38 136.001,42 + costs + +f. Training activities 247.207,91 226.310,00 473.517,91 + +Total 1.611.434,99 512.444,03 2.123.879,02 + + + + + 69 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 70 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [5 - Digital Maktaba] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 151.250,00 203.400,00 354.650,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 367.425,00 1.214.824,84 1.582.249,84 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 42.509,52 119.302,04 161.811,56 + costs + +f. Training activities 123.603,96 286.090,00 409.693,96 + +Total 684.788,48 1.823.616,88 2.508.405,36 + + + + + 71 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 72 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge + Extraction] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 152.500,00 324.300,00 476.800,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 643.735,50 357.644,84 1.001.380,34 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 65.662,62 88.685,44 154.348,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,98 584.990,00 646.791,98 + +Total 923.700,10 1.355.620,28 2.279.320,38 + + + + + 73 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 74 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 203.400,00 435.900,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 183.712,50 653.784,59 837.497,09 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 33.461,01 67.475,42 100.936,43 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,98 106.750,00 168.551,98 + +Total 511.475,49 1.031.410,01 1.542.885,50 + + + + + 75 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 76 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [8 - uBIQUity] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 348.750,00 82.500,00 431.250,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 265.995,00 574.847,07 840.842,07 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 47.358,29 53.486,79 100.845,08 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,94 106.750,00 168.551,94 + +Total 723.905,23 817.583,86 1.541.489,09 + + + + + 77 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 78 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + +Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + + 79 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 80 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 0,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 88.497,50 0,00 88.497,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.352.747,50 0,00 1.352.747,50 + + + + + 81 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 82 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [11 - Trans-National Access] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 124.089,09 0,00 124.089,09 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 470.568,96 0,00 470.568,96 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 41.626,06 0,00 41.626,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 636.284,11 0,00 636.284,11 + + + + + 83 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access operations and + research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 84 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [1 - Project and Impact Management] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 495.535,91 493.875,00 989.410,91 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 1.622.667,50 1.622.667,50 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 294.500,00 489.500,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 200.000,00 0,00 200.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 62.337,51 172.272,97 234.610,48 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + +Total 952.873,42 2.633.315,47 3.586.188,89 + + + + + 85 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication Manager, + Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; licenses; + hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project + management training; language courses + + + + + 86 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 744.750,00 744.750,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.020.000,02 2.020.000,02 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 97.000,00 97.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 245.157,50 245.157,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 640.500,00 640.500,00 + +Total 0,00 3.747.407,52 3.747.407,52 + + + + + 87 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 969.525,00 969.525,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.715.568,00 2.715.568,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 197.500,00 197.500,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 329.681,31 329.681,31 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 827.140,00 827.140,00 + +Total 0,00 5.039.414,31 5.039.414,31 + + + + + 88 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università di Napoli L’Orientale] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 290.625,00 0,00 290.625,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 96.066,25 0,00 96.066,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.468.441,25 0,00 1.468.441,25 + + + + + 89 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Palermo] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 2.189.000,00 0,00 2.189.000,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 6.728.341,80 0,00 6.728.341,80 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 0,00 195.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 150.000,00 0,00 150.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 704.603,69 0,00 704.603,69 + costs + +f. Training activities 803.425,68 0,00 803.425,68 + +Total 10.770.371,17 0,00 10.770.371,17 + + + + + 90 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the + table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Torino] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + + a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + + b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + technological + equipment + + c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + + d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + + e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + + f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + + Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + +Il soggetto beneficiario si dichiara a conoscenza che le variazioni richieste non possono in ogni caso superare, in termini cumulati, il limite del +15% rispetto al totale dei costi ammessi al finanziamento, fermo restando il rispetto dei limiti percentuali, ove presenti, per ciascuna tipologia + + + + + 91 / 453 + PROPOSED PAYMENT PLAN + + + Bimester Payment Amount Cumulative Payment Amount + + 1 531.756,35 € 531.756,35 € + + 2 1.018.683,36 € 1.550.439,71 € + + 3 1.610.259,88 € 3.160.699,59 € + + 4 1.681.736,49 € 4.842.436,08 € + + 5 1.633.393,55 € 6.475.829,63 € + + 6 1.594.766,64 € 8.070.596,27 € + + 7 1.594.766,64 € 9.665.362,91 € + + 8 1.594.766,64 € 11.260.129,55 € + + 9 1.594.766,64 € 12.854.896,19 € + + 10 1.624.633,05 € 14.479.529,24 € + + 13 1.574.766,64 € 16.054.295,88 € + + 15 1.574.766,64 € 17.629.062,52 € + + 17 1.629.977,35 € 19.259.039,87 € + + 19 1.576.683,57 € 20.835.723,44 € + + 21 1.335.747,06 € 22.171.470,50 € + + + + + 92 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 49.846,48 49.846,48 + + 2 BM2 99.692,95 149.539,43 + + 3 BM3 244.276,89 393.816,32 + + 4 BM4 252.998,06 646.814,38 + + 5 BM5 252.998,06 899.812,44 + + 6 BM6 252.998,06 1.152.810,50 + + 7 BM7 252.998,06 1.405.808,56 + + 8 BM8 252.998,06 1.658.806,62 + + 9 BM9 252.998,06 1.911.804,68 + + 10 BM10 252.998,06 2.164.802,74 + + 13 BM13 252.998,06 2.417.800,80 + + 15 BM15 252.998,06 2.670.798,86 + + 17 BM17 252.998,06 2.923.796,92 + + 19 BM19 223.131,60 3.146.928,52 + + 21 BM21 175.379,15 3.322.307,67 + + + 36 WP title + T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies + 37 WP number + 3 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 93 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 8 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + T-ReS is a toolkit of software specifically designed and optimised for the domain of Religious Studies, aimed at empowering researchers + with up-to-date, user-friendly and sustainable tools that take full advantage of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure ecosystem. + The toolkit includes CRITERION, a software for creating critical editions of primary sources, and GNORM, a software that allows a + more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of printed religious normative sources + through data mining techniques and providing a 3D visualisation of the analysed sources. + + Scope and goals + The toolkit for Religious Studies collects a group of software prototype tools (incl. CRITERION and GNORM) that aim at + improving the research experience of scholars, developing a technology that is applicable also to other domains, thanks to the + interdisciplinarity offered by Religious Studies, a cross-fertile domain of knowledge that links philology, theology, history, law, art-history, + linguistics, semantics, philosophy, sociology, and which collaborates with hard-science such as chemistry in the study of primary sources (eg. + analysis of inks in the manuscripts). T-ReS includes two major use cases (CRITERION and GNORM, outlined below), grouped in a + single WP in order to maximise synergy and with the aim of providing a library of reusable software components. Such a library allows to + simplify and speed up the development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi-language, multi-alphabet, multi- + onthologies solutions for the in-depth processing of voluminous corpora; additionally, the library can be applied to and draw from the other + WPs of the project. The prototype tools envisaged specifically for the T-ReS WP are: + 1. The development of CRITERION, an open-source, multi-platform, multi-language and multi-alphabet software for creating critical + editions of primary sources. It is meant primarily for religious texts, where textual criticism and editions in diverse (and often uncommon + or ancient) languages are crucial, not only for the establishment of a text and understanding its context, but also for the impact that + religious texts had and have on the life of millions of people. The current digital resources show various shortages: + - The little support for uncommon and ancient languages in software producing critical editions or, when support exists, lack of tools for + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + + + + 94 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + - Lack of room for cooperation, while (especially in Religious Studies) cross-language cooperation and re-use of research data are + quintessential to the field, and therefore crucial. + - The available software is either non-open source, or discontinued. + - The available editors for critical editions provide poor support material even in the case of non-open source editors (such as CTE). + To overcome these challenges, CRITERION is able to produce printed and/or digital editions, in an easily readable and readily easily + interoperable format, with PDF and TEI-based encoding respectively: TEI standards can be applied for the management of next- + generation standoff properties. CRITERION, being Open Source and part of an infrastructural ecosystem, is released to a user + community that can support and enhance its elements (i.e. plug-ins) through a dedicated website and users’ forum (cfr. Stack Exchange). + To achieve its purpose, CRITERION must also be able to incorporate an advanced plug-in model allowing the automatic collation of + witnesses and the production (and visualisation) of sets of variants, of manuscript groups and of relationships between manuscripts in the + form of potential stemmata, supplanting tools such as ChrysoCollate. Most importantly, CRITERION allows also to preserve and re- + use the research data that text editors collect during their work. The research data is preserved in a structured dataset that ensures + Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR principles), thus pushing forward philological research. + + 2. GNORM is a software allowing a more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of + printed religious normative sources through data mining techniques based on the word2vec model and applying standoff properties to large + corpora. GNORM is capable of visualising the results of its analysis in 3D, researchers to examine the evolution of religious normative + texts both in their textual and paratextual elements. Given that religious normative texts have their own specific internal consistency, + which is shared by different corpora, ITSERR is able to provide the perfect environment for developing a domain-oriented prototype like + GNORM. Once again, the digital shortages in the currently available tools become GNORM’s challenges: + a) While a 2D visualisation is already possible, it does not allow an easy, user-friendly interface able to show the chronological + stratification of a primary source, both in its textual and paratextual elements. + b) Optimization of already existing 3D visualisation technology for Religious Studies, where the implications of the texts under scrutiny + go well beyond their philological or literary aspects and involve significant historical, theological and juridical aspects. + With GNORM, the glosses are digitally categorised and ordered through metadata assignment obtained through machine learning, and + the properties according to which they are categorised (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.) correspond to the + axes that can be viewed in 3D visualisation (for a maximum of 3 axes). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP: + A3.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of text editors capable of producing critical editions (for CRITERION); + analysis and evaluation of source material, and analysis of suitable software tools (for GNORM); analysis of the features required by a + shared library for ITSERR software tools; formulation of scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + + A3.2: Scientific preparation, divided in: + A3.2.1: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for CRITERION. + A3.2.2: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for GNORM. + A3.2.3: evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION. + A3.2.4: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici. + A3.2.5: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Talmud Bavli. + + A3.3: Development: + For CRITERION: Optimisation/development of an editor for applying to text TEI-based standoff properties, that are stored in and + retrieved from a graph database, implementation of import/export functions for the graph database used by the editor, and integration of + an automatic collation software (e.g. CollateX or Chrysocollate) with the editor, as a plugin. + For GNORM: Optimisation of data mining algorithm for applying word embedding to the texts in the corpora; + development/optimisation of a software for automatic application of properties to the corpus; development of a 3D visualisation software + for the assigned properties. + For T-ReS in general: development of a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR and also RESILIENCE research services. + A3.4: Test: Testing of CRITERION and GNORM with the scientific community; testing of the shared library across software + developed in other WPs. + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + + + + 95 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + the CRITERION user community. Running GNORM on the collected corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, and + publication of CRITERION and GNORM for the RESILIENCE marketplace. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + 1. The first output of T-ReS is CRITERION, a software that allows users to produce both digital and/or printed + critical editions, with full representation of a multi-level critical apparatus (for variant readings, sources, intertextual + references etc). In substance, the outcome of CRITERION is a software that is able to: + 1)Annotate a text with TEI standards with standoff properties. + 2)Order the annotated properties in a graph database, and retrieve them for visualisation according to the users’ + input. + 3)Produce an automated collation of witnesses, if required by the user. + 4)Import databases of textual properties from third-party collation software (if the data model is compatible). + 5)Import databases of textual properties created by other users of CRITERION. + 6)Visualise relationships between textual properties (e.g. manuscript groups, variant readings) by retrieving + information from its graph database. + 7)Export results in XML or PDF for digital and printed editions respectively. + 8)Possibility to support the export of result with a future standard model for TEI, standoff annotation. + 2. GNORM will develop a 3D visualisation software that makes possible to visualise the chronological stratification + of the textual and paratextual elements of a source. The axes of the 3D visualisation can be chosen by the users + from an array of properties (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.). + The test case will be based on specific corpora: the Corpus Iuris Canonici and the Talmud Bavli. + 3. T-ReS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + Motivation + 1)CRITERION is one of the greatest desiderata of those fields of study whose specialisms are based upon, or at + least strongly characterised by, the production and analysis of critical texts of primary sources. Although this niche + of the market is not devoid of relevant tools, none of the latter simultaneously cover all the requirements set by + CRITERION: for instance, some completely lack the multi-layered approach (like CTE); some are not WYSIWYG + (like most LaTeX-based software); most are not optimised for non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets; some are not + optimised for non-Windows users (again, like CTE); some are not familiar with markup languages (e.g. traditional + word editors, like MS Word, LibreOffice etc.), and some are designed only for online editions). The field of + Religious Studies, where textual criticism is not only relevant per se, but is also connected with historical, theological + and juridical issues, and where connected texts are often extant in different languages and alphabets, is one of the + very few environments where a powerful prototype like CRITERION can be developed. + 2)GNORM. There is the need of a 3D Edition Visualization Technology, which will show the source in different + chronological layers, allowing the final user to visualise the evolution of hermeneutics and the stratification of the + source. Furthermore, words can become tags for all the other sources in which that specific word occurs, displaying + the various layers not only in chronological order but also according to linguistic occurrences and semantic + similarities. Such a functionality allows the data mining of large corpora: this will help scholarship in analysing + different manuscripts and early printings at the same time, with the possibility to show the (hidden) cross-references + and the mutual influences. Since religious normative texts maintain a specific internal consistency, which is shared + by different corpora within the field of Religious Studies, scholars of this domain are the most motivated to develop + a prototype like GNORM, which is bound to positively affect other domains. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + + + 96 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D3.1.1 Whitepaper on Toolkit Libraries + This whitepaper explains the reasoning and possible exploitation of the libraries + adopted by T-ReS tool, and their cross-application (implemented or envisaged) for + BM6 6 tools developed in other IT. The whitepaper also serves as guidelines for adding + new material to the library, and describes its compatibility with other software + tools, especially within RESILIENCE. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D3.1.2 Whitepaper on CRITERION + This whitepaper describes CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor for producing + digital or print-ready critical editions of sources pertaining to the field of Religious + Studies. It explains the challenges given by the high complexity of the languages + and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and how CRITERION applies the TEI + data models for encoding texts, and produces output that can be exported in a + XML or PDF format, to ensure compatibility and long-term usability (for XML) + and ease of use (for PDF). It also illustrates how the editor makes the largest + possible use of standoff properties annotations, that allow to perform nested + BM15 15 and/or multiple tagging of text portions (unlike XML). In addition, the standoff + annotator engine is added to the T-ReS toolkit library (D3.1.1). + D3.1.3 Whitepaper on GNORM + This whitepaper describes GNORM as a software for visualising the chronological + stratification of the textual and paratextual elements of a source presenting the + high complexity of the languages and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and + the related challenges. It details the corpus preparation guidelines and explains how + GNORM extracts the information from the source, annotates it as metadata, and + then visualises it for the user + + D3.1.4 Whitepaper on the results using GNORM on Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + BM17 17 to GNORM, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + + + 97 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + D3.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + CRITERION and GNORM is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in + the form of two training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE + infrastructure. + D3.3 Data publishing (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli Metadata) on + BM19 19 RESILIENCE + The database created by using GNORM on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud + Bavli corpora is published on RESILIENCE, powered by GNORM itself for + multi-layered and 3D visualisation. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly + community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and + exploring new features of normative religious texts; on the other hand, this + displays the potentialities of GNORM. + + D3.4 Prepare CRITERION and GNORM for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + The technical documentation of T-ReS library, and the technical documentation, + BM21 21 source code and binaries of CRITERION and GNORM are packaged as Open + Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM1 1 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 98 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + + + + 99 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM3 3 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + + + 100 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM4 4 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + + + + 101 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM5 5 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 102 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM7 7 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 103 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM8 8 ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 104 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM9 9 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + + + + 105 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + + + + 106 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM13 13 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 107 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM15 15 + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + + + + 108 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM17 17 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM19 19 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 109 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM21 21 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 110 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 49.846,48 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 99.692,95 + + + + + 111 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on toolkit libraries + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 244.276,89 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for CRITERION + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for GNORM + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + + + + 112 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in PRODUCTION environment; second release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in PRODUCTION environment; second release of GNORM in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 223.131,60 + + + + + 113 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 175.379,15 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: CRITERION, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.3 + + + + 114 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION, domain-specific testing of + prototype and scientific coordination and support of Analysis and Development teams; its goal is to oversee and direct the development of + CRITERION carried out in A3.2.1 and A3.3 in order to ensure that the prototype corresponds to the needs of the scientific + community. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 213.887,44 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.972,12 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 115 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/CRITERION + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in software research and prototyping for CRITERION. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 116 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Talmud Bavli, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the analysis and preparation of the Talmud Bavli corpus for GNORM; it prepares guidelines for corpus pre- + processing for GNORM, as far as the Talmud Bavli case-study is concerned; it subsequently performs the corpus building and pre- + processing for GNORM (Talmud Bavli), according to the specified guidelines; it also carries out domain-specific testing of the GNORM + prototype, with relation to the Talmud Bavli corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 117 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 3.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of developing the software required for T-ReS tools, carrying out the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design + task ensures that: + + + 118 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)CRITERION development: this task develops CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor prototype, in cooperation with the scientific + team in charge of A3.2.1. It also develops the plug-in system for CRITERION, and it produces a collation analysis plug-in. + 3)GNORM development: it develops the (meta)data extraction system for GNORM through algorithm optimisation and layout + analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of knowledge extraction + algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. It also produces the architecture of the database where + extracted properties are stored. + 4)GNORM visualisation: it develops a visualisation frontend for GNORM, to allow 3D visualisation and fruition according to users’ + needs and requirements. + 5)T-ReS, general: it develops a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, in order to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR. + All this is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.487.778,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 104.144,46 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 119 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 3.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test CRITERION and GNORM. + Although this may look as an almost final stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the + testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the + conditions of use, etc. + + Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of + CRITERION and GNORM, for the WYSIWYG editor in one case, and for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli) in the other. In addition, this activity tests the T-ReS shared library by coordinating with activities A3.3 and A3.2.1 + and with other WPs; finally, it collects feedback from users of CRITERION and GNORM prototypes, to assist in producing + documentation for the prototypes. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + + 120 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 3.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is properly run, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. + It also sets up GNORM and the databases for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli) for Continuous + Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release- + ready state. + The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. For CRITERION, it ensures that a dedicated community + forum is set up, while for T-ReS it deploys the shared library in coordination with other WPs. + Finally, it ensures that the prototypes of CRITERION and GNORM are released and published for the RESILIENCE + marketplace. + + + + 121 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 103.380,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.236,60 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 3.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 122 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary IT work for the development of T-ReS. The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic + understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. + In particular, the activity explores and evaluates text editors capable of producing critical editions for CRITERION, and evaluates + source material and suitable software tools for GNORM; it also analyses features required by a shared library for ITSERR software + tools and, elaborates prototypes for the tools; finally, it produces scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 172.500,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 136.620,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.490,67 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + + + + 123 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in algorithmic research for GNORM. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + + + + 124 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Corpus Iuris Canonici, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 8 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to: + 1) the analysis and preparation of guidelines for corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici; + 2)application of guidelines and corpus building for GNORM (Corpus iuris canonici); + 3)domain-specific supervision on the testing of the prototype with relation to the Corpus Iuris Canonici case-study. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 125 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 126 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 2.114,70 2.114,70 + + 2 BM2 113.926,37 116.041,07 + + 3 BM3 130.174,88 246.215,95 + + 4 BM4 130.174,88 376.390,83 + + 5 BM5 130.174,88 506.565,71 + + 6 BM6 130.174,88 636.740,59 + + 7 BM7 130.174,88 766.915,47 + + 8 BM8 130.174,88 897.090,35 + + 9 BM9 130.174,88 1.027.265,23 + + 10 BM10 130.174,84 1.157.440,07 + + 13 BM13 130.174,88 1.287.614,95 + + 15 BM15 130.174,88 1.417.789,83 + + 17 BM17 130.174,88 1.547.964,71 + + 19 BM19 130.174,88 1.678.139,59 + + 21 BM21 119.935,92 1.798.075,51 + + + 36 WP title + Data Centre Services + 37 WP number + 2 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 127 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + To fully serve the scientific community of Religious Studies, the most basic requirement of a RI is to provide best of breed computing + resources supported by secure and robust Data Centre services. In terms of computing resources and services, the scope of ITSERR is to + offer cost savings, scalability, high performance, economies of scale, and more. In cooperation with the RESILIENCE Data Centres + partners, CINECA and the University of Muenster, this WP will deliver IT resources and services including storage, processing power, + databases, networking, analytics and software applications over the internet. By providing these resources, ITSERR allows Italian + Religious Studies researchers to access the computational assets they need, when they need them, without needing to purchase and maintain + a physical, on-premise IT infrastructure. This provides flexible resources, faster innovation, and economies of scale. + + Like RESILIENCE, to provide Data Centre Services (DCS) ITSERR adopts the IT Infrastructure library (ITIL) 2011 approach. + ITSERR’s Operations Officer (OL) is the Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) for all DCS related matters and is supported in these + activities by the DCS operations team members. The DCS operations team will be responsible for applying ITIL-based processes and + principles when managing its activities throughout the duration of the project and during 10 years after its end. The DCS team will + interact with all WPs to organise the services and provide monthly DCS reports to the Team Leaders and the Infrastructure Manager. In + terms of services, the DCS team will participate at least to the following processes: Release and deployment management; Configuration + management; Service level management; Continuous service improvement; Availability management; Capacity management; IT service + continuity management and Access management. + + Scope and goal + The operational and security excellence of the RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure is ensured by the Data Centre (DC) Services + Operation Team and underwritten by the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE. This policy defines security and + management controls to be applied in the provision of DC services by ITSERR teams for all research projects hosted on the resilience- + ri.eu platform. This WP addresses DC security and managements aspects such as: + - Operations of development, testing and operational IT environments + - Follow-up software/hardware vulnerabilities from mainstream vulnerability databases + - Network management procedures + - Production and project services: authentication and authorisation, Access and Authentication Infrastructure (AAI) integration, asset + management, installation and configuration, data handling, vulnerability management, availability monitoring, backup configuration, + change management, user registration, etc. + - Logging and monitoring of systems’ capacity and availability, + - Laptop recommended configuration, anti-virus policy, administrator activities + - Incident/Problem Management procedure also for security events + - Backup management + - Business Continuity management: maintenance of resources for disaster recovery at any delivery location + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE supply of Data Centre Services + + Activities envisaged + A2.1 DC Services Analysis: During the first 2 months of the project, the DC Operations Team will gather the requirements in terms + of: + + + 128 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + of: + - applications hosting requirements, sizing, data and processing capacity, etc. + - project and quality management tools necessary for the follow-up of the project; + - security requirements to operate safely all ITSERR systems and data. + For all requirements gathered, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of + RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. Then DCS solutions are discussed with the various team + members and the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + + A2.2 DC Services Implementation: the DCS team orders the software licences necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services + Then the team proceeds with the installation of the solutions on the RESILIENCE Data Centre partner and starts testing the overall + service levels of the infrastructure. Here also, the security measures to be applied at infrastructural levels are set-up and put in operation. + + A2.3 DC Services Support: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP teams to + ensure a shared knowledge and the respect of the management and security services and principles. They will also assist the WP teams + during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and production). The DCS Team will be in close contact with the + RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and DCS services are used by WP1, WP3 to WP10 and WP12 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + First for all WP teams of this project, and then for the broader community of Italian DH researchers, the provision + of professional IT computing services and expertise including: + ●Authentication and Access Infrastructure services: Today users often need five to ten accounts or digital identities + in their digital research life. RESILIENCE AAI replaces different sign-in techniques for specific tools in the + RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure if there is a restriction necessary. Where agreed by existing institutions, + RESILIENCE AAI will make use of existing academic or research identities by interfacing existing systems. + ●Storage: The storage service provides initially a few PB of storage to the infrastructure projects as a technical core + service to all WPs. An easy and secure access and rights management gets implemented on top of the Resilience + AAI. + ●Hosting: The service implements Virtual Machines (VMs) per WP project so that they can move from one hosting + environment to another if a researcher wants to. This service includes for the ITSERR projects: + ○core VMs installation of Linux based stack such as LAMP. + ○The project [name] hosting is made available under [name].resilience-ri.eu. + ○the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, + change management, staff time management, etc. (See in figure WP2.1 a simplified version of the tools and their + relations within our PM and development hosting environment). + ○The WPs development, test and production environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle + management, documentation lifecycle management, etc. + ○The operation management environment including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services + availability, logging, services performance, etc. + ●Computing capacity: The computing service gives easy access to different kinds of computational resources like + shared memory systems and hadoop/spark clusters of different sizing based on the WP requirements (i.e. Machine + Learning requirements). + ●Security: Resilience as an infrastructure will be designed as a security framework in which security services are + already included such as anti-spam filters, load-balancers, request filtering (e.g. denial-of-service attacks). Due to this + approach, ITSERR reduces the efforts to be invested by each hosted research project to guarantee the security of its + project. + ●Shared knowledge: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + + + + 129 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE Data Centre Services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3). + Motivation + ITSERR intends to host a huge variety of information systems with a high impact on the Religious Studies Research + ecosystems including both EU and non-EU citizens, agencies, governments, etc. We note that for the information + systems in the scope of ITSERR, the availability, capacity and security of research data and research services is + paramount. Considering this context, we intend to design a security and service strategy embedded in Data Centre + Service delivery ensuring adherence to best of breed rules, policies and guidelines on all levels: ITSERR contract, + Work Packages, future research projects, individual researchers and citizens. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D2.1 Services Level Requirements: The Operations Leader (OL) will lead the + collection of the project services requirements from all management team + members. This information, a mandatory ITIL deliverable will be presented as + Service Level Requirements (SLR) and is an important deliverable that must be + clearly defined, documented, signed off, and understood by all project stakeholders + before the service could be delivered. Its content will cover at least the following + topics: + ●General requirements + ●Services operations requirements (e;g. deployment, infrastructure change + requests, account provisioning, etc.) + ●Requirements on the delivery of services operations (e. g. Service Level to be + provided) + ●Languages supported (i.e. for the support service desk) + ●Normal services hours (i.e. where the ITSERR team can work but also when + researchers using the RI can call the support services) + ●RI support outside of Normal services hours (i.e. On-call service, etc.) + ●Training requirements (i.e. for the ITSERR team but also for the researchers, + future users of the RI) + BM1 1 ●Security requirements + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE(M4, + M12, M24): The DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services + BM2 2 operations. They will be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + + + + 130 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + BM3 3 ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM4 4 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + + + 131 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + BM5 5 information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + BM6 6 The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + + + + 132 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM7 7 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + + + 133 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM8 8 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM9 9 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 134 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + BM10 10 ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM13 13 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + + + + 135 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + BM15 15 ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + BM17 17 ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + + + + 136 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM19 19 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + BM21 21 among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + + + + 137 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + BM1 1 ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + + + + 138 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + BM2 2 DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + + + + 139 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + BM3 3 to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + + + + 140 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + BM4 4 Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + + + + 141 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + BM5 5 obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + + + + 142 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + ll the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + BM6 6 depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + + + + 143 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + BM7 7 below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + + + + 144 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + BM8 8 copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + + + + 145 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + BM9 9 the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + + + + 146 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + BM10 10 automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + + + + 147 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + BM13 13 Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + + + + 148 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + + + + 149 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM17 17 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + + + + 150 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM19 19 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 151 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + BM21 21 All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + + + + 152 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + BM21 21 ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + + 153 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 2.114,70 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 113.926,37 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + + + 154 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 130.174,84 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + + + + 155 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 119.935,92 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 156 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + There are various investigation techniques for arriving at clearer requirements. Considering that users are often unsure about the + requirements, the support of a technical staff member is sometimes necessary. During the first months of the project, the DC Operations + Team will gather the requirements avoiding the eventual problems that can occur in collecting requirements: + ●Lack of relevance to the objectives of the service + ●Lack of clarity or ambiguity in the wording + ●Duplication between requirements + + At the end, the Service Level Requirements (See D2.1) will cover at least the following aspects: + ●ITSERR DCS plans and strategy + ●Vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the ITSERR as a Whole, and of the various WPs + ●Legislative requirements + ●Governance requirements + ●Budgeting and accounting requirements + ●Balanced scorecard + ●Service level requirements and targets + ●Service portfolio and service catalogue + ●Service review meetings + ●Customer satisfaction surveys + ●Continuous Services Improvement (CSI) initiatives already logged in the CSI register + ●Service models + + + 157 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Service models + ●Service Design Package + ●Benchmark and baseline data + ●Risk assessments and risk mitigation plans + + The Services Level Requirements document will be submitted for approval to the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders and will + be signed off before its analysis. + From the SLR accepted, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (See Deliverable + 2.2) of RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. To obtain the best services support, the ITSERR + DCS team will maintain regular contacts with the RESILIENCE DCS team during all phases of the project. + Then the DCS team starts proposing solutions in terms of software and services. These are discussed with the various team members and + the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 55.338,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.873,66 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + + + + + 158 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + DC Services Support + 49 Activity short name + 2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS team prepares documentation and training material for the WP teams to ensure a shared knowledge of the management and + security services and principles to be respected. + They will also assist the WP teams during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and set in production). + The DCS Team will be in close contact with the RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 189.819,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + + 159 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 13.287,33 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Implementation + 49 Activity short name + 2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 40 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS ITSERR team synchronises periodically with the RESILIENCE team to verify the status of the DC services and software + available on resilience-ri.eu. + From this information, the software licence necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services are ordered. + Then the DCS team proceeds with the installation of the solutions (See an example in the annexed figure WP2.1) and starts testing + their operationality. The team proceeds with the installation of the first mandatory environments including: + ●the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, change management, staff + time management, etc. + ●The WPs development environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle management, documentation lifecycle + management, etc. + ●The operation management including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services availability, logging, services performance, + etc. + + When the WPs teams will start deploying their software, a key mission of the DCS Team is to maintain operational and up-to-date the + software stack required by each WP. Among this stack is the RESILIENCE Toolkit composed of new/existing, shared and re-usable + components/services. As explained in WP3, and also in WP4 to WP10, the ITSERR Architecture and Design team will design all + WPs software solutions and will make sure that each time it is possible, an identical functionality will only be developed once and + eventually re-use existing code or software services already deployed in RESILIENCE or other RIs. During the pre-analysis of the WP + scope, the ITSERR team already identified some components that will be potentially re-used as presented in the annexed figure WP2.4. + 54 Activity budget + + + + + 160 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.435.287,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 100.470,12 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 161 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 19.224,82 19.224,82 + + 2 BM2 38.449,65 57.674,47 + + 3 BM3 38.449,65 96.124,12 + + 4 BM4 28.733,62 124.857,74 + + 5 BM5 19.017,59 143.875,33 + + 6 BM6 19.017,59 162.892,92 + + 7 BM7 19.017,59 181.910,51 + + 8 BM8 19.017,59 200.928,10 + + 9 BM9 19.017,59 219.945,69 + + 10 BM10 19.017,58 238.963,27 + + 13 BM13 19.017,59 257.980,86 + + 15 BM15 19.017,59 276.998,45 + + 17 BM17 19.017,59 296.016,04 + + 19 BM19 19.017,59 315.033,63 + + 21 BM21 19.017,59 334.051,22 + + + 36 WP title + Data Management Services + 37 WP number + 12 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 162 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP12 works toward the provision to the Research Community of Data Management Services and Reference Data Model services, while + working in full compliance with the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services. + + Scope + As a research infrastructure, ITSERR aims at the spreading of Open Science as a core part of its mission. Our mission is globally to + spread knowledge within an open, FAIR and interoperable ecosystem that is digital AND physical, while respecting environmental goals + (i.e. by favouring activities in person, by choosing zero-impact service providers for digital services, etc). Of course RI users are the only + ones accountable for the data they produce, but recourse to open standards, both in publications and other outputs (data, software etc.) will + be strongly encouraged by ITSERR wherever applicable. In addition, the implementation of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, + Reusable) compliant practices will be mandatory for all research data stored by ITSERR users/researchers. ITSERR therefore intends + to provide to the Research Community Data Management Services to: + - provide advice, guidelines, training and consultancy on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability + - encourage all its users to pursue Open Science practices by favouring i.e. open licences + - release all its publications (intended as documents produced by the consortium for the scope of the RI) in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposit them in a trusted repository + - publish all software engineered by ITSERR as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license types, and deposit + them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab) + - help applicants generating/collecting data and/or other research outputs (except for publications) by asking them to provide a maximum + half page on how the data/research outputs will be managed in line with the FAIR principles. The ITSERR team will then guide them + to the best possible implementation of the FAIR principles for their data. + + ITSERR, as a research infrastructure, does not primarily generate research data or research outputs in itself. Instead, it allows the + collection, the transformation of, and the distribution of data and metadata about research inputs/outputs. As a collector and distributor + of diverse datasets, ITSERR will interface a diversity of users: not only researchers, students or professors that are touched by the domain + of Religious Studies, but also different actors, such as the world of education, religious leaders and representatives, local or even national + political institutions, the press, and any citizen interested in developing an understanding of religions. To tackle this diversity of data, their + usage and the heterogeneity of potential users, ITSERR will deliver Reference Data Model services aiming at: + - Harmonising datasets of different provenance and with different target audiences by providing a RESILIENCE Reference Data + Model maintenance, being supported by data models and standards highly supported by the research community such as schema.org + - Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially thanks to the harmonisation + mentioned above + - Adopting for all WPs, the 4 layers EOSC interoperability framework: technical, semantic, organisational and legal + - In situations where different data licenses collide, ITSERR relies also on legal advice to tackle such issues for its users + - For research data including information about persons (e.g. from survey results, or user activities) that cannot be anonymized, ITSERR + will make sure that it is not made openly available and will be protected in accordance with GDPR + - Delivering guidance and training to researchers on data harmonisation and interoperability + - Improving the support to researchers by continuously collecting their feedback. + + + + 163 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + For its own scope, ITSERR can collect research data (e.g. in the form of surveys, services usage logs, etc.), and output can be generated in + the form, for instance, of software and/or data workflows for trainings or other activities. To this end, the ITSERR teams ensure: + - That data collected is treated according to the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" + - The findability and accessibility of all data and documents with a public status related to the design of the RI, using trusted repositories + - The adoption of Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license + In the case of data workflows, interoperable formats and standards are adopted. + + All ITSERR research and information technology outputs are deposited in git repositories and in trusted repositories (such as Zenodo) + respectively. + + The WP12 strengthens the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services (See Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3 in Annex 1). + + Activities + A12.1 Data Management Plan (DMP) creation: the Data Management Plan is a prescriptive deliverable designed to ensure that all + data hosted on the ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, accessible and reusable) and interoperable in the sense of the + EOSC interoperability framework. All activities performed here are to ensure that the DMP is aligned with RESILIENCE and + ITSERR DMP data requirements. + + A12.2 Reference Data Services: ITSERR must warranty that religious studies researchers have access to the information that they need + for their work, that the quality of the information is maintained at an acceptable level, that data models are syntactically and semantically + interoperable and that legal aspects in the areas of privacy, security, and confidentiality are warranted. A dedicated team of data + specialists works to establish RESILIENCE data management strategy, an agreement on the supportive technologies, the description of + the information management processes and the adopted data standards, data models and policies. + + A12.3 Data Services Execution: This activity is the implementation of the Data Management Strategy published and agreed upon in + A10.2. including tasks such as: + - Identify data sources. + - Identify data stewardship and ownership + - Data matching + - Data profiling + - Update the Reference Data Model, if necessary + - Advises on data interoperability + - Test the data interoperability + - Recommendations to adapt the system(s) data producers and consumers for an improved interoperability + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + All WPs + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + Provision of professional Data Management services for the Italian Religious Studies researchers. By using the + ITSERR data hosting platform, the researchers can benefit the following services: + ●Advices, guidelines and trainings material on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability, etc.; + ●Find and submit publications from the overall RESILIENCE research ecosystem in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposited in a trusted repository for long term persistence; + ●Find specialised data management software for Religious Studies as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software + Foundation license types, and deposited them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab); + ●Consultancy and expertise provision on research data management; + ●Guidance on harmonising research datasets and making them interoperable; + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + + + + 164 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + thanks to the harmonisation mentioned above; + ●Involving, where possible, citizens themselves in the production of knowledge (e.g. through surveys, interactive + seminars or educational activities, etc.). + The WP strengthens the RESILIENCE reference architecture services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM2 2 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM3 3 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM4 4 - + + + + + 165 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM5 5 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM6 6 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM7 7 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + BM8 8 ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + + + + 166 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM13 13 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + BM15 15 ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + + + + 167 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + BM21 21 data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + BM1 1 Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + + + + 168 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM1 1 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM2 2 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + BM3 3 the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 169 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM4 4 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM5 5 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + + + + 170 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM6 6 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + BM7 7 ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + + + + 171 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM8 8 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM9 9 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + BM10 10 data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + + + + 172 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM13 13 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + BM15 15 gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + + + + 173 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM17 17 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM19 19 ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + + + + 174 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM21 21 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 19.224,82 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + + + + 175 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 28.733,62 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + + + + 176 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 19.017,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + + + + 177 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Final version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Management Plan + 49 Activity short name + 12.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 6 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 178 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Management Plan (DMP) is intended to be a living document in which information can be made available on a finer level of + granularity through updates as the implementation of the project progresses and when significant changes occur. + Additionally, no single strategy can cover the integration and interoperation of the diverse datasets to be included in ITSERR: for these + reasons, the Data Management Plan is accurately designed to ensure that data that enters the ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, + accessible and reusable). + The following activities will be performed: + ●Analysis of RESILIENCE Data Management Plan + ●Collecting data services requirements on data produced and collected by the ITA WPs + ●Virtual information sessions on proper data handling with RESILIENCE Team, incl. GDPR, Open Science, FAIR principles + ●Eventual updates to RESILIENCE Data management plan + ●Presentation of RESILIENCE DMP and Q&A to all WP leaders (incl. FAIR, Open Science principles, tools, etc.) + ●Reviews and revision of RESILIENCE DMP proposed to RESILIENCE Team + ●Data Management Services (DMS) + ●Data Services Brainstorming + ●Preparation Workshops + ●ITSERR Data Management Services Analysis + ●Set-up of the ITSERR data handling and organisation + ●Set-up long term archiving and publication of core Resilience data according to Open Science and FAIR principles for ITSERR. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 54.482,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 179 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.813,77 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Reference Data Services + 49 Activity short name + 12.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + ITSERR has the objective to re-use and set-up a Reference Data Model by developing a baseline operational data model and maintain + it as a long term Reference Data Model for data managed on the RESILIENCE ecosystem. + Our Reference Data Model is build as such: + ●Collecting (Meta)Data requirements from all stakeholders + ●Building out the infrastructure to support a reference data model + ●Creation of a process for updating the model (including data governance approval) + ●Use the model content to organise and structure data hosted on RESILIENCE + ●Keep refining the model while supporting new projects on the platform. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 106.646,40 € + + + + + 180 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.465,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Services Execution + 49 Activity short name + 12.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Services Execution is the implementation of a series of artefacts(software, guidelines, training, etc) helping each work package + to implement adequately their Data Management LifeCycle (DMLC). This activity will perform the following tasks: + ●Selection and prioritisation of services to be implemented for ITSERR: based on the WP data management requirements, we’ll identify + a set of tools to be created and/or set-up to implement the DMLC + ●Architecture and design of the software components implementing the data management services to be hosted within RESILIENCE + ●Development and testing of the services + + + 181 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Development and testing of the services + ●Operation: the Data Centre Services team ensures that all artefacts produced, transformed and managed by the tools are available + 24/7, that the back-up of data is performed and that the project capacity is sufficiently sized (ie: memory, space, processing). + ●Documentation writing for RESILIENCE: this documentation becomes part of the RESILIENCE knowledge management + repository + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 151.068,60 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.574,80 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 182 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 34.819,76 34.819,76 + + 2 BM2 69.639,51 104.459,27 + + 3 BM3 148.779,46 253.238,73 + + 4 BM4 153.140,02 406.378,75 + + 5 BM5 153.140,02 559.518,77 + + 6 BM6 153.140,02 712.658,79 + + 7 BM7 153.140,02 865.798,81 + + 8 BM8 153.140,02 1.018.938,83 + + 9 BM9 153.140,02 1.172.078,85 + + 10 BM10 183.006,46 1.355.085,31 + + 13 BM13 153.140,02 1.508.225,33 + + 15 BM15 153.140,02 1.661.365,35 + + 17 BM17 153.140,02 1.814.505,37 + + 19 BM19 153.140,02 1.967.645,39 + + 21 BM21 156.233,63 2.123.879,02 + + + 36 WP title + DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum + 37 WP number + 4 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 183 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 7 Dipartimento di Ingegneria CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + DaMSym is intended as a software prototype for applying text understanding techniques to the investigation of issues on texts with a high + density of semantic information, determined by particular characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. Adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities, DaMSym benefits from an ideal case-study presented by Religious Studies, namely the translations of the Nicene- + Constantinopolitan Creed, a text with a strong dogmatic claim. DaMSym is meant to improve (and, in a virtuous circle, take advantage + from) the capabilities of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure, by bringing together cultural, historical and theological factors to + produce a new type of semantic analysis tool, capable of producing novel, domain-related knowledge, providing scholars with new insights. + + Scope and goal + The recent developments in Artificial Intelligence ensuing from the so-called connectionist turn and the development of Deep Neural + Networks have enabled new approaches to text mining and computational text analysis and understanding. In particular, the new + techniques of vector semantics and word embeddings provide new affordances for the establishment of the contextual meaning of single + words or phrases in a text. As well, recently developed Deep Neural Networks based on the fully-attentive paradigm, like BERT and + GPT-x has enabled a wide range of textual understanding and generation applications, from text classification to entity extraction and + machine translation, even in presence of a limited training set (few-shot or zero-shot settings). + The traditional study of Biblical concordances found its first computer-generated production as early as in 1957 and several search and + study systems for the Bible have been implemented since. While research on the Bible (and other sacred texts) can be pursued by improving + the implementation of tools for textual analysis, there is a type of texts relevant to Religious Studies that requires different tools and + different types of analyses. This type of texts is exemplified by the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. The Creed, along with other credal + formulas, presents a series of specific features: + - It is a “vehicular” text: its purpose is to transmit a formula of faith, with all its wide-ranging implications. + - It has a dogmatic claim: it has characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + + + 184 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + spectrum than other written texts (e.g. involving the non-literate). For the same reason, it has been translated extensively (often even + multiple times) into various languages, from the 4th century AD down to present times. + - It is relatively short, but also coherent in and of itself as well as with all its religious implications (theological, liturgical, doctrinal etc.). + - It serves (and served) a catechetical purpose. + At the same time (and for the same reasons) it can be (and often is) adapted to the target culture to a much greater degree than the sacred + texts. This means that the translated text incorporates semantic values from the target culture, while transmitting other semantic elements + from the language (or culture) of origin. + Because of these features, the aim of this WP is to develop software and algorithms for applying text understanding techniques to the + investigation of semantic textual issues, with the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a case study, adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities. The reasons for the methodological shift from conventional probabilistic methods to a machine learning approach have + already been highlighted in recent research. While in conventional probabilistic methods the choice was for topic modelling applications, a + machine learning approach envisages the use of more advanced approaches for textual understanding, ranging from the word2vec model for + word embeddings to more powerful approaches like GPT-x and BERT. Through a vector semantics approach, it is possible to achieve a + form of “computational close reading” that allows disambiguation and the detection of diachronic lexical semantic change. On the other + hand, BERT is one of the state-of-the-art models for text understanding, and allows to understand and classify text by considering an + entire sentence or an entire document, while generative approaches like GPT-3 can perform more sophisticated tasks like machine + translation between several languages, question answering and summarization even in presence of limited training data, thanks to the few- + shot abilities it exhibits. + Overall, the recent connectionist turn in Artificial Intelligence enables the direct application of computational analysis to lexical textual + phenomena and significantly enhances the effectiveness of digital interpretive and editorial practises. The critical and historical investigation + of the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into several languages provides a fitting case study in this respect. + The specific meaning of a word or phrase in a text can be inferred from the contextual analysis of the specific corpus of the author’s + writings and of coeval relevant literature. This is particularly significant for the examination of the diachronic lexical change among the + successive translations of a text: in this case study, the translations of the Creed are compared with a corpus that is contemporary to the + translation itself, and is of course in the same language as the translation. This allows the comparison of different interpretations of one + and the same textual expression, across different languages and alphabets, providing essential information for the advancement of + Religious Studies but also for other connected domains (such as philological criticism). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A4.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of digital and non-digital texts of the Creed, in original ancient languages and + in translations; analysis and recognition of word embedding tools to be adapted in later stages; formulation of scientific, user and technical + requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + + A4.2.1: Scientific preparation/general: validation of technical and scientific requirements and scientific coordination/support for other + activities in the WP. + A4.2.2: Scientific preparation/case-study: corpus-building and corpus preparation for DaMSym. + A4.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation. + A4.2.4: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, Greek and Latin texts. + A4.2.5: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, translations. + + A4.3: Development: training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding, optimisation and fine tuning of word embedding tool(s), + development of an APIs (for storing extracted properties in a graph database, for automatic standoff annotation, for machine translation, + for text classification); implementation of functions for the standoff platform, to present researchers and other users with an accessible + software prototype. + + A4.4: Test: testing of DaMSym in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation) and in its pre-release form (as a + full software protype for analysis of the Creed). Testing of DaMSym among a sample of researchers, for user and scientific feedback. + + A4.5: Operation: DaMSym goes into production. Running DaMSym on the Creed corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + + + 185 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The result of the WP is a combined software that allows to analyse and annotate corpora to understand, classify and + evaluate contextual semantics of any given text, in different languages and with special attention to uncommon and + ancient languages. This is especially useful in analysing translations of texts where semantics play a crucial role, such + as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The WP produces a prototype capable of applying word embedding on + multiple languages, operating machine translation of words, sentences and texts inside the textual corpora, + classifying and understanding text, according to the specific needs highlighted by humanities experts, executing + standoff annotation and visualising properties in a graph database. DaMSym is used in the critical case study of the + Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but can be applied to test-cases with high conceptual normativity presented by all + Humanities. + The prototype strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated + to the enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Religious Studies are characterised by text presenting a peculiar conceptual normativity, and the existing corpora + analysis tools do not allow for a full, in-depth understanding of the relationships between the text and its corpus, + and smaller and bigger corpora. Texts like the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople need to be placed in their linguistic, + cultural, chronological and theological framework to be fully interpreted semantically. This type of investigation + must make use of a vast amount of data, of diverse nature and complexity. To fully exploit the existence of such + diverse and extensive data, suitable digital tools are needed. To produce such tools a synergy between different types + of expertise can only be developed within the ecosystem of RESILIENCE, which is a domain-specific Research + Infrastructure. + The resulting prototype for textual understanding and data mining, however, can be applied even beyond the case + study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: the software developed by the WP make it possible to assess the + value as well as the semantic and cultural context of each translation, taking into account multi-disciplinary factors + (here represented by historical, theological and even liturgical elements) that are otherwise missed in purely text- + related or language-related tools. From a more technical point of view, the use of state-of-the-art neural networks + for textual understanding, specifically re-trained for the use-case, and a graph database allows a visual representation + of the words in context while resulting in a better disambiguation of word meanings which is the main point of the + research. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + + + + 186 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D4.1.1 Whitepaper on DaMSym + This whitepaper describes the reasoning and possible exploitation of DaMSym, + intended as a software that performs several functions: + 1)word embedding extraction + 2)machine translation + BM13 13 3)text classification and document understanding + 4)standoff properties annotation + 5)properties visualisation. + Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes DaMSym in + its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in subsequent + phases. + + D4.1.2 Whitepaper on the results using DaMSym on Nicene-Constantinopolitan + Creed + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to DaMSym, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating DaMSym + on the Creed corpus. As such, this deliverable not only validates DaMSym’s + prototype, but also provides researchers with new material for their studies + + BM17 17 - + + D4.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + DaMSym, and also during the preparation of D4.1.1 and D4.1.2 is systematised + BM19 19 and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a training package to be integrated + with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The package includes and use-case samples + (drawn from D4.1.2), as well as templates. + + D4.3 Data publishing (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum metadata) on + RESILIENCE + The database resulting from the application of DaMSym to the Creed corpus is + published, powered by DaMSym for browsing, consultation and user-only + annotation, through RESILIENCE. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research + acquisitions and exploring the connections between religious texts and their + BM21 21 commentaries; on the other hand, this displays the potentialities of DaMSym, + setting a new standard for tools dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also + for other domains. + + D4.4 Prepare DaMSym for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of DaMSym are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + + + + 187 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM1 1 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM2 2 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 188 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM3 3 ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + + + + 189 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM4 4 ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + + + + 190 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM5 5 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 191 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + + + + 192 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM8 8 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + + + + 193 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM9 9 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM10 10 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 194 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM13 13 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + + + + 195 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM15 15 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + + + + 196 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM17 17 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM19 19 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 197 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + + + + 198 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 34.819,76 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 69.639,51 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 148.779,46 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + + + 199 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on DaMSym; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 200 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 183.006,46 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; second release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 156.233,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 201 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 202 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 7 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the Greek and Latin texts of the Creed, to prepare them for analysis through + DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.652,28 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations + + + + 203 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the texts of the Creed in the translations defined in A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, to prepare + them for analysis through DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + + + + 204 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation; in a second stage, it oversees + the development activity (A4.3) in its realisation/adaptation of software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation, + ensuring that it remains in line with the scientific principles formulated in A4.1. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 205 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/general + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise. + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities and it validates technical and + scientific requirements, with the assistance of domain-specific experts for IT and for Religious Studies and by coordinating with other WP + activities. + It checks that software development and corpus preparation are performed in accordance with the technical and domain-specific + requirements, and it assists in updating these requirements when needed. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 206 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 27.912,56 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.641,33 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 4.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + 207 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up DaMSym and the database on the Creed for + Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always + in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for DaMSym, based on the works of A4.1-A4.4. + 2)It provides that DaMSym goes into production and that the database for the Creed powered by DaMSym is published for + RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + It provides that DaMSym’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + + + + 208 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 4.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test DaMSym. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. + The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their + problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, who + provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of DaMSym, for research on the two case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, + updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products + offered to the researchers. + In particular, DaMSym is tested first in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation), in order to assess KPIs and + assist the Development activity (A4.3), then DaMSym is tested its pre-release form (as a full software tool for analysis of the Creed), for + collecting user and scientific feedback. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,04 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 209 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 4.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity aims at finalising all the work validated by the previous phases, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this task brings different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and lead to smarter, more + sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + + + + 210 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)Training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding on the target languages, collecting training data from freely-available sources and + from the digital texts collected in A4.2 + 3)Optimisation and fine-tuning of the most performant toolkit component for word embedding on original texts, and on the translations + (at least 5 languages in 3 different non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets). + 4)Development and training of text understanding and classification tools for the digital texts collected in A4.2, on the basis of an + assessment of existing neural network architectures (e.g. GPTx-like) + 5)Development of an API that turns word embedding vector clusters into properties stored in a graph database (such as Neo4J). + 6)Development of an API for automatically annotating the vector clusters contained in the database as standoff properties in texts of the + corpus. + 7)Development of a machine translation API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 8)Development of a text classification API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 9)Implementation of functions for the standoff properties platform, in synergy with the T-ReS library, to be performed on the whole set of + different language corpora, and finalisation of DaMSym as an accessible software prototype for researchers and other users. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 800.538,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 56.037,65 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 211 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 4.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary work for the development of DaMSym. + The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This + involves consulting researchers and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the corpus of interest related to + the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, through engaging with researchers to produce a recognition of the corpus, analysing the digital and + non digital texts to be included and expressing the research issues involved. + To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this activity, for the corpus on the Creed and for + DaMSym as a software. + In parallel, digital resources for the languages involved are analysed, and tools for the required text processing functions (word embedding + extraction, properties database organisation, standoff properties platform) are explored. + This results in a formulation of technical requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 212 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/case-study + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of collecting the corpus for the Creed and its translations, ensuring that each text (or translation) of the Creed + can be compared with a sizeable corpus of literature of the same language and of the same period as each text (or translation). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 213 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 277.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 214 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 35.919,24 35.919,24 + + 2 BM2 71.838,48 107.757,72 + + 3 BM3 142.316,00 250.073,72 + + 4 BM4 186.551,53 436.625,25 + + 5 BM5 186.551,53 623.176,78 + + 6 BM6 186.551,53 809.728,31 + + 7 BM7 186.551,53 996.279,84 + + 8 BM8 186.551,53 1.182.831,37 + + 9 BM9 186.551,53 1.369.382,90 + + 10 BM10 186.551,57 1.555.934,47 + + 13 BM13 186.551,53 1.742.486,00 + + 15 BM15 186.551,53 1.929.037,53 + + 17 BM17 186.551,53 2.115.589,06 + + 19 BM19 186.551,53 2.302.140,59 + + 21 BM21 206.264,77 2.508.405,36 + + + 36 WP title + Digital Maktaba + 37 WP number + 5 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 215 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + Digital Maktaba (in Arabic "maktaba", "library": the "place where books are located", henceforth DM) is conceived as a response to + the need to create multi-alphabet digital catalogues for the management of works in non-Latin alphabets and aims to become an + instrument exportable to other realities than that of the religious sciences where it was born. + DM is an important addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem because it is intended to offer a helpful and innovative service to + libraries specialised in religious studies that need to manage cultural heritage data in non-latin alphabets. For this reason some resources + of the FSCIRE Library in Palermo constitute a rather unique and exclusive case study which includes specialised knowledge, non-latin + alphabets (e.g. Arabic) and multilingual variation in a comprehensive digital corpus of documents. From this point DM accepts the + challenge posed by non-latin alphabets in matters of data extraction, big data management and the challenge of librarianship and + cataloguing at large. + + To date, for example, the Italian National Library Service does not provide for such a possibility yet and also imposes ineffective + transliteration systems in contrast to the adjustments being made in other countries and the standards set by the International Standard + Bibliographic Description. The choice of systems to be adopted is still subject to the influence of the ideological element and the cultural and + political dimension of the choice itself. + + The aim is to establish procedures for the extraction, management of libraries and archives and to develop virtuous models in the field of + cataloguing that can accommodate texts written in non-Latin alphabets, starting with the case of the Arabic alphabet. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A5.1 Analysis. This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital + Maktaba, and setting the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + T5.1.1 Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the historical-critical, + linguistic perspective + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + + + + 216 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + - OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + - text mining techniques + - long term preservation of digital documents techniques + - big data management tools/techniques + - (interpretable) machine learning techniques + + A5.2.1 Scientific preparation/OCR: Definition of text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; + exploiting object fusion techniques based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools + A5.2.2 Scientific preparation/Extraction: Definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + exploiting multilingual resources + exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition + A5.2.3 Scientific preparation/Database Architecture: Definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the + extracted catalogue data and metadata, to be successively implemented in A5.3. + A5.2.4 Scientific preparation/Validation: Supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, + both on samples of materials found in WP1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + + A5.3 Development: this activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and + Supervised Cataloguing, performing the following tasks: + T5.3.1 design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques for interfacing + / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + - Long term preservation practices + - Big data management / distributed + T5.3.2 definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + T5.3.3 design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + T5.3.4 definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and interpretable) ML + algorithms: + - to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + - to automate publication type recognition + - to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + T5.3.5 Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in WP1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + A5.4 Test : this activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the + following tasks: + T4.1 Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + T4.2 Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + T4.3 Use case workshop + + A5.5 Operations: A web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project + Digital Maktaba is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for + publishing in RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + outcome + The aim of the WP is to ultimately create a supervised intelligent cataloguing tool prototype. Advanced search + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + + + + 217 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + information required and make searches more efficient and effective w.r.t. typical cataloguing tools. Intelligent and + AI-based techniques will also have a prominent role: intelligent assistance features will be designed and implemented + in order to bring new levels of assistance to the cataloguing process. Data entering will be supported by suggestions + derived from user feedback and previously entered data; supervised machine learning models will enable automatic + publication type recognition and provide a systematisation and classification of data according to the topographic + classification of the FSCIRE library. The design of incremental ML algorithms will ensure that the prototype can + "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use. + + DM strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + The information retrieval and text extraction fields on Arabic scripts have made huge strides in the last decades, but + there have not been many projects aimed at exploiting them for the curation of new and innovative digital libraries. + In 2009 the Alexandria library announced the creation of the Arabic Digital Library as part of the DAR project + (Digital Assets Repository), employing a sophisticated OCR system for the Arabic language. Other projects are + Arabic Collections Online (ACO), a publicly available digital library of public domain Arabic language content, and + the British Library projects, focused toward the digitization of handwritten Arabic and Persian manuscripts. All + these projects target only a part of the languages considered in DigitalMaktaba and aim at the pure digitization of a + (smaller) library of books, often with consistent manual work. + Focusing on text and metadata extraction tools available in state of the art, most of existing OCR / text acquisition + systems do not offer consistent and high quality results on all the languages we plan to consider in this project. Most + tools require manual work (batch process is not always possible), and none of them returns all the rich information + and metadata necessary to our project goal. Instead, our goal in this project is to obtain an intelligent (and + automated) system producing high quality outputs on the different languages and with a rich metadata content, + minimising the manual work required for cataloguing. + This is especially relevant since now even the smallest libraries must adapt acquisitions to the needs of culturally + heterogeneous users and are often unable to do so due to the impossibility of managing this data. Hence the urgency + of a global sharing of multicultural heritage. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + D5.1.1 Whitepaper on new algorithms + This whitepaper describes the developed algorithms for automatic text recognition, + metadata and knowledge extraction (A5.2). In particular, it details: + BM7 7 ○A prototype of algorithms for automatic text recognition. + ○A prototype of algorithms for metadata extraction. + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + + + 218 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + D5.1.2 Whitepaper on the software DIGITAL MAKTABA + This whitepaper describes the Digital Maktaba prototype, in its Data Management, + Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing features. In particular, it details: + ○A database design report + BM17 17 ○A prototype of advanced search techniques + ○A prototype of web user interface + ○A prototype of intelligent assistance ML techniques + ○A final report with description of the integrated engineered software prototype. + ○A validation of the final prototype, with a use case. + + D5.3 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + Digital Maktaba is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + BM19 19 package includes a use-case sample (drawn from D5.1.2), as well as templates. + + D5.4 Data publishing on RESILIENCE + The web portal for Digital Maktaba, with video and content to report on the + progress of the project Digital Maktaba is published on RESILIENCE. + + D5.5 Prepare DIGITAL MAKTABA for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of Digital Maktaba are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM1 1 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 219 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + + + + 220 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM3 3 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM4 4 ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + + + + 221 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM5 5 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM6 6 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 222 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM7 7 ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + + + + 223 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM8 8 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM9 9 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + + + + 224 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + + + + 225 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM13 13 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM15 15 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 226 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM17 17 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + + + 227 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM19 19 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + + + + 228 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 35.919,24 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 71.838,48 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 142.316,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis (scenario, OCR and text mining tools) + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 229 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis (OCR and text mining tools applied to DigitalMaktaba) + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 186.551,57 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 230 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST + environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 206.264,77 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + + + + 231 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/OCR + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity defines text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; it also explores exploiting object fusion + techniques, based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools, in order to maximise the efficiency of the + Development team. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 232 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, + travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Extraction + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 233 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The goal of this activity is the definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + ●Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + ●exploiting multilingual resources + ●exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 21.016,80 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 179.340,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + + + + 234 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 5.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity ensures that Digital Maktaba goes into operation and is properly set up, and that, from a data management perspective, big + data management techniques and tools are properly applied to the database for storing the extracted data and metadata. Special focus is + given to the data interchange and long-term preservation aspects, in order to allow data interchange with catalogue data from other + libraries and make the managed data readable and usable also on a long-term basis. + Finally, a web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project Digital Maktaba + is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for publishing in the + RESILIENCE marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 318.827,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 235 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 22.317,94 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 5.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the following tasks: + ●T5.4.1 [M 24-26] Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + ●T5.4.2 [M 26-28] Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + ●T5.4.3 [M 28-30] Use case workshop + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + + 236 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 5.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing, + performing the following tasks: + ●T5.3.1 [M 14-18] design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques + for interfacing / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + ○Long term preservation practices + ○Big data management / distributed + ●T5.3.2 [M16-20] definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + + + 237 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + ●T5.3.4 [M16-24] definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and + interpretable) ML algorithms: + ○to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + ○to automate publication type recognition + ○to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + ●T5.3.5 [M 25-26] Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in A5.1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + ITSERR development activity is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 829.775,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 58.084,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 238 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Validation + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, both on samples of + materials found in A5.1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 239 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 5.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital Maktaba, and setting + the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + ●T5.1.1 [M 1-6] Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the + historical-critical, linguistic perspective + ●T5.1.2 [M 1-6] Preliminary recognition of: + ○OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + ○text mining techniques + ○long term preservation of digital documents techniques + ○big data management tools/techniques + ○(interpretable) machine learning techniques + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + + + + 240 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 171.810,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.026,69 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Database Architecture + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 241 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity is tasked with the definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the extracted catalogue data + and metadata. The database, according to the specifications designed in this activity, is to be successively implemented in A5.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 151.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 242 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 50.134,56 50.134,56 + + 2 BM2 100.269,12 150.403,68 + + 3 BM3 167.994,00 318.397,68 + + 4 BM4 172.354,59 490.752,27 + + 5 BM5 172.354,59 663.106,86 + + 6 BM6 172.354,59 835.461,45 + + 7 BM7 172.354,59 1.007.816,04 + + 8 BM8 172.354,59 1.180.170,63 + + 9 BM9 172.354,59 1.352.525,22 + + 10 BM10 172.354,58 1.524.879,80 + + 13 BM13 152.354,59 1.677.234,39 + + 15 BM15 152.354,59 1.829.588,98 + + 17 BM17 152.354,59 1.981.943,57 + + 19 BM19 152.354,59 2.134.298,16 + + 21 BM21 145.022,22 2.279.320,38 + + +36 WP title + YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction +37 WP number + 6 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 243 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + +40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + YASMINE is a visual-semantic metascraper that combines semantic and mapping layers in order to extract knowledge from a specific + site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific processing. As such, + YASMINE is a significant addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem, especially as far as Search & Find research-enhancing + services are concerned: in fact it incorporates the ability of scraping and enriching visual and audio data by using Computer Vision and + Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that is converted into metadata. YASMINE is designed + for two purposes that are unique to religious studies and are described below: the Sanctuaria case-study, and the Plorabunt case-studies, + dedicated to religious shrines network and to the prayerful killed in terrorist attacks since 1982 respectively. + + Scope and goal + There are fields of research in Religious Studies whose study can be undertaken because of the existence of contemporary sources outside + traditional archival venues, but is slowed down by the lack of tools to make them available. ITSERR can assist RESILIENCE in + overcoming this by developing a prototype whose software components, using artificial intelligence, can search for data and extract + knowledge from it, and then analyse, categorise and order information related to the research topic. + The main issue is posed by the fact that the web offers a plethora of data: structured or unstructured, stored in multiple formats (i.e. texts + from XML/HTML, PDF,... Images from png, jpg, webp, etc), implemented using different technologies (static documents, dynamic + documents from CMS, API, JavaScript, etc). This heterogeneity in the web sources makes it difficult for scientists to collect, clean, + analyse, structure and organise data in ways compliant with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). + YASMINE drastically reduces the pain of finding and scraping web sources and increases the power of the scientist in creating high + quality disciplinary corpora from web sources. This will be supported by a multi-encoding, multi-lingual, multi-format and pluri-semantic + architecture to adapt the solution to the needs of the researcher. + ITSERR intends to explore two technological paths offering scientists a technical choice in terms of learning capacity, scalability, + architectural flexibility and adaptability: + YASMINE is a prototype of an open source meta-scraper with a highly modular and scalable architecture to be easily confronted to + + + + 244 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + extract very specific knowledge for various scientific projects, disciplines, etc. It will be composed of three engines: + - a semantic (structure) analyser to easily read and interpret any web data sources and create a reusable semantic layer allowing to + interpret and extract automatically the data of the web source. The semantic layer can be enriched manually by the scientist for a fine- + tuned data structure discovery and will be recorded within a semantic layer database for continuous improvement of the capacity of + YASMINE to automatically and better discover and understand any web data source. + - a data mapper: will propose the scientists with automated solutions to interpret the data discovered within the semantic layer and map + them to output data objects. This is the data mapping layer; + - a meta-scraper: supported by its multi-format, encoding, etc. capacities, using the semantic and data mapping layers to extract + knowledge from a specific site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific + processing. Semantic and data mapping layers would be part of a FAIR based repository to allow recurrent web data sources exploration + to keep the data up-to-date and share this interpretation data with the research community. + The developed metascraper, YASMINE, is then tested on two test cases, that are particularly relevant because they offer complex + research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and + read together, but which religious-historical research can no longer ignore. The two test cases, that already possess a starting database that + has been worked on, are Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, described below: + a) the case of Sanctuaria: this case study applies to the large number of shrines with religious significance and to the routes and network + that connect them. While projects addressing singular networks of sites and their connecting routes do exist, they are generally limited in + chronology and scope, and they do not integrate new knowledge extracted from the web, but limit themselves to systematising existing + knowledge. YASMINE, applied to this case study, has instead the goal of producing new knowledge about the shrines and their + connection by scraping the web for information. + b) the case of Plorabunt, a database of the prayerful killed in places of worship, worldwide, since 1982. The compilation of such a + database poses significant challenges: information ranges from the identification of the places, dates of the religious attacks, names of the + victims, names of the killers, to the storage of available digitised sources - i.e. from archives, libraries, international and local associations’ + web sites, journals, social network pages, etc. To this respect, the wealth of information available on the web, as a whole, is useless to the + researchers: the data is not ordered nor manageable in terms of scholarly investigation, and must therefore be used piecemeal. On the + contrary, appropriate web scraping and Artificial Intelligence tools for textual understanding can extract information efficiently, giving to + the researchers access to new sources, new databases and new frameworks for their activity. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A6.1: Analysis: in this activity, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts and Religious Studies researchers committed to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt test cases. + + A6.2.1: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Plorabunt: specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.2: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria: specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: On the software development side, algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping + are experimented and researched for use and optimisation within YASMINE. + A6.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: For general scientific preparation and coordination, the material experimented in A6.2.2 + and collected in A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between + A6.2.1 and A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. + + A6.3: Development: maintenance of the RESILIENCE software components library; optimisation and development of algorithms and + software for automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data, for layout analysis, for semantic structure analysis and for + data mapping; the tools are combined into YASMINE + + A6.4:Test: testing of YASMINE (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security testing, researchers community + testing, etc.), with reference to the Sanctuaria and on the Plorabunt test cases, and improved depending on feedback. + + A6.5: Operations: Creation of a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, with the expertise developed during the test + phase, released in RESILIENCE. Running YASMINE on the use case Pilgrimage, and population of the relative database; running + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + + + 245 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + marketplace. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + YASMINE, as a visual-semantic metascraper, is an unprecedented prototype that is capable of extracting specialised + information from the web, ordering it in semantic and mapping layers, and making it reusable as part of a FAIR + based repository. This allows recurrent web data sources exploration to keep the data up-to-date and share this + interpretation data with the research community. YASMINE is applied to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt case-studies. + Both attempt to architect two reusable but specialised AIs to extract specific knowledge, to use Machine Learning + methods, tools and techniques, and to perform the inception of the AI learning by “feeding” the AI with the + semantic layers discovered by YASMINE. + ITSERR intends to compare the quality of data extraction that can be achieved by pushing both technological + approaches. + Some specificities of this WP are that both projects, Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, should : + ●Support for multiple web data sources technologies/formats (XML/HTML, API, JS, etc.) + ●Support of multiple languages + ●Support of multiple alphabet/encoding + ●Support of multiple ontologies/semantics + ●Support of multiple output formats + YASMINE strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to + the search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + In itself, YASMINE produces a significant advancement as a domain-dedicated metascraper, and such advancement + is pushed by the specific requirements that are posed by the two case studies, both of great relevance for Religious + Studies. In fact, they offer complex research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual + sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and read together, but which religious-historical research + can no longer ignore. + For the Sanctuaria case, the extreme fragmentation on a regional basis of the various projects (either in progress or + concluded) highlights a potential of connections not yet investigated. Thanks to YASMINE, the case-study intends + to create a network that identifies transversal research paths: cults, architectures, sources, to be identified on the + national territory but also in its Global extensions. + With regards to the Plorabunt project, YASMINE organises and provides access to an enormous amount of data + and sources on attacks against the prayerful in places of worship. Because of the wide scope of Plorabunt and of the + difficulties in finding on the web reliable information, the use of an intelligent metascraper is pivotal for treating and + analysing such a vast data source without limiting the scope of the research. To this respect, YASMINE offers a + breakthrough technology model, which is innovative and versatile enough to find other applications even beyond + the domain of Religious Studies. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + + + + 246 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + D6.1.1 Whitepaper on YASMINE + This deliverable describes YASMINE, a metascraper that is capable of performing: + 1)Automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data + 2)Layout analysis to automatically extract texts and images + 3)Semantic mapping of web pages, adding a semantic layer that acts as a + destination language. + 4)Interpretation of the semantic layer and mapping of its elements to data objects. + The deliverable also describes the output of the scraping activity, in form of FAIR- + compliant metadata. + D6.1.2 Whitepaper on Sanctuaria datasets + BM10 10 This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Sanctuaria test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Sanctuaria test-case. + D6.1.3 Whitepaper on Plorabunt datasets + This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Plorabunt test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Plorabunt + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + D6.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The training material for YASMINE is the output of this deliverable. It is built + upon the experience obtained through testing (A6.4) and through the previous + stages of development (A6.1-A6.3), with the help of IT experts, testers and + BM19 19 scholars. Training material is also produced, for integration with the + RESILIENCE research infrastructure. Additionally, documentation and training + materials are provided for accessing the databases dedicated to the two use cases, + Sanctuaria and Plorabunt. + + BM21 21 D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + + + + 247 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + The Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets are made available through RESILIENCE. + This aims at obtaining a double result: on the one hand, it provides researchers + with two powerful databases for pushing forward their research on two relevant + topics for Religious Studies; on the other hand, it displays the potentialities of + BM21 21 YASMINE and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other domains. + D6.4 Prepare YASMINE for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of YASMINE are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + BM1 1 M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + + + + 248 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM2 2 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM3 3 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 249 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + BM4 4 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + + + + 250 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM5 5 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + + + + 251 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM6 6 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + + 252 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM7 7 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM8 8 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 253 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM9 9 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + + + + 254 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM10 10 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + + + + 255 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM13 13 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 256 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM17 17 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + + + + 257 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM19 19 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + + + + 258 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM21 21 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + 259 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 50.134,56 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 100.269,12 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on YASMINE + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 167.994,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + + + + 260 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of YASMINE in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 172.354,58 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 261 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Second release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Application of YASMINE to the two case-studies + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 145.022,22 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + 262 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 274 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 28.028,36 28.028,36 + + 2 BM2 56.056,72 84.085,08 + + 3 BM3 110.462,52 194.547,60 + + 4 BM4 114.823,10 309.370,70 + + 5 BM5 114.823,10 424.193,80 + + 6 BM6 114.823,10 539.016,90 + + 7 BM7 114.823,10 653.840,00 + + 8 BM8 114.823,10 768.663,10 + + 9 BM9 114.823,10 883.486,20 + + 10 BM10 114.823,12 998.309,32 + + 13 BM13 114.823,10 1.113.132,42 + + 15 BM15 114.823,10 1.227.955,52 + + 17 BM17 114.823,10 1.342.778,62 + + 19 BM19 114.823,10 1.457.601,72 + + 21 BM21 85.283,78 1.542.885,50 + + + 36 WP title + REVER - REVErse Regesta + 37 WP number + 7 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 275 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + REVER is a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles (the regesta) to the + documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a regestum, by applying to + documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it takes advantage of the RESILIENCE + research infrastructure ecosystem, but it also represents a significant addition to it (and beyond). In fact, REVER is different from + existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the + contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. + + Scope and goal + Between the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, several scholars and erudites interested in the archival documents produced in the + Middle Ages tirelessly produced a large quantity of regesta (i.e. scholarly summaries of the contents of archival documents of diverse + natures). Paradoxically, the use of this scholarly literature, which bears extraordinary and unrepeatable scientific value, has fallen into + disuse without becoming obsolete: the fact that twenty-first-century scholars have become more and more accustomed to find online + significant segments of the information they look for has contributed to putting into jeopardy the immense treasure of regesta. Expert- + augmented machine learning will allow for the reconnection of the original sources to the regesta and will rescue two ‘old’ treasures (both + archival documents and the regesta themselves), thus making readily available to the scientific community the semantic density, complexity + and stratification of the regesta and pave the way to innovations. + Ecclesiastical sources are the typology of documents on which this intellectual exercise has been carried out most decisively and precisely. + For this reason, the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (an already existing collection of ecclesiastical documents from the origins of the + Latin Church to the twelfth century), represents an ideal sample dataset for applying expert-augmented machine learning to reconnect the + sources and their summaries (i.e. the regesta). + This activity requires a unique type of text summarisation algorithms that must be able to operate with different languages and with + domain-specific categories. The aim is therefore not to merely apply Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to a specific set of + texts (i.e. the regesta and the documents that they summarise): rather, the aim is to produce a new algorithm that is able to apply + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + + + + 276 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + pertaining to Religious Studies). Given that the regesta and the documents they summarise might not be already been digitised in textual + format, this activity will also take care of developing Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) tools, for translating handwritten texts into + digital text, and OCR tools for converting printed texts in a digital version. + The existing text summarisation software, based either on text extraction algorithms, or on text abstraction algorithms, or a combination + or both (such as LSA-Text-Summarisation, NAMAS, or TextRank), are meant to work in one direction only (from the full text to + the summary) and thus with a top-down approach; thanks to the coherence provided by the domain-related documents and to the + possibility of hyperlinking already existing summaries (i.e. the regesta) to the full documents, new algorithms can be developed and trained + to work in both directions, thanks to a positive feedback mechanism. In other words, it becomes capable of summarising documents in + regesta-type entries, but also of linking existing (or newly created) summaries to their sources. + The fact that regesta can be (and often are) written in a language that is different from the one of the documents they refer to adds a layer + of complexity: a form of reverse engineering based on algorithms capable of operating in different (or even encrypted) languages, like + ReFormat, is therefore required. + In addition to developing and optimising the algorithm(s), the WP develops a visualisation software for presenting the connections between + regesta and full documents, automatically hyperlinking the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their source. The software can + be operated offline or online and, for the scope of this WP, it is designed to display the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. + + Activities envisaged in the WP + A7.1 Analysis: Recognition of the use-case corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the documents they refer to) for algorithm + processing (i.e. pre-processing), production of scientific and technical requirements + + A7.2.1: Scientific preparation/IT: IT supervision and creation of guidelines for pre-processing corpora for REVER. + A7.2.2: Scientific preparation/Corpus building: supervision and corpus building on the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum for REVER. + A7.2.3: Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing: Application of guidelines for pre-processing the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + to be processed by REVER. + A7.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: coordination between IT and scientific research, and validation of the other activities in the + WP. + + A7.3: Development: development of text ranking and text summarisation algorithms for REVER, development of user interface, OCR + optimisation (where required). + + A7.4: Test: testing lifecycle on the desktop and server software (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security + testing, researchers community testing, etc.). + + A7.5: Operations: REVER desktop and server solutions go into production. Running REVER on the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum, release of the database created through REVER in RESILIENCE, and publication of REVER for the research + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, ETC + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + This WP develops an algorithm that serves as matcher from a summarised text to its original source and vice versa, + even when the summary and the full text are in different languages; the WP also develops an attached software for + the search and visualisation of results and takes care of digitising handwritten or printed documents. All prototypes + are able to work online and offline, with an accessible User Interface. Through expert-augmented machine learning, + the prototype will automatically hyperlink the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their transcribed full- + text source, matching the keywords and the most relevant elements in the summary to the extended version of the + source. This project allows: + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + + + + 277 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + allowing a wider and deeper access to fundamental sources; + 2.to make available the knowledge developed in the nineteenth century, thus preserving a repository of knowledge + that is foundational for the development of more refined research; + 3.and finally to develop in a new and innovative way the processes of machine learning/AI. + REVER strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Automatic text summarisation with machine learning is an already existing technology. However, generic text + summarisation is by definition non-specific, and does not add value to the summarised text: indeed, any summary is + specifically carried out to subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. On the other hand, the + proposed algorithm, with its capability of working both ways and of applying semantic and domain-specific + principles, does produce added value: for the full text, it produces a regestum, that is not just a summary, but a + domain-specific summary, with completely different criteria from generic text summarisation. On the other hand, + for the single regestum it provides a hyperlink to the full document to the domain-specific summary. + Starting from abstractive summarisation principles, this technology will be integrated with palaeographic and + diplomatic methodology to fuel – with a scientific and highly specialised knowledge – a machine learning process + capable of incrementing knowledge. + As a software prototype, REVER is also capable of being integrated in the wider RESILIENCE Research + Infrastructure, enlarging its field of application and its accessibility to the scholarly community at an european and + international level. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D7.1.1 Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + This whitepaper contains guidelines for corpus pre-processing is meant to provide + clear and usable instructions for researchers who wish to have their corpus + processed by REVER. The guidelines are developed according to the experience + BM5 5 developed with the case-study corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum), but + they are written to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not + corpus-specific, but rather software-specific, and can be updated throughout the + work of the WP. + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + BM13 13 This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + + + + 278 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + 1)Tools for handwritten text recognition of historical manuscripts and OCR on + digitised documents, according to the principles set by D7.1.1. + 2)an algorithm that is able to link the regesta to the documents they refer to, in an + automated way. The algorithm is tailored to the study-case, but is Open Source – + like all the other WP deliverables – and is passible for further improvement, + adaptation and optimisation. + BM13 13 3)An algorithm that performs the opposite work of the previous one. It is capable + of producing a regestum-like summary of a source text, by extracting information + in a domain-related way. It differs from text summarisation and non-specific text + extraction, since it produces a type of summary that is specifically tailored for the + study-case domain. It therefore ranks information automatically according to the + uses and needs of the scholarly community, and can be trained through machine + learning for optimising results. It is Open Source and is potentially adaptable to + other domains, beyond that of Religious Studies for which it was designed. + + D7.1.3 Whitepaper on REVER + This deliverable is a whitepaper describing REVER, i.e. the implementations of the + algorithms described in D7.1.2 with a user interface that allows browsing and + BM15 15 visualising the analysed corpus, linking existing regesta with their sources and + producing new regesta from existing sources. The deliverable is tested as a part of + activity A7.4, and the test results are used for further improvement and for + producing D7.2. + + BM17 17 - + + D7.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The training material indispensable for using REVER is the output of this + BM19 19 deliverable. It is built upon the experience obtained through testing (T.7) and + through the previous stages of development (T.1-T.6), with the help of IT experts, + testers and scholars. + + D7.3 Data publishing of new metadata on Regesta Pontificum Romanorum onto + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D7.1.3 and the documentation + written for D7.2, along with data prepared according to D.7.1.1, are combined in + the release of a browsable online version of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + through RESILIENCE. This produces a double output: on the one hand, it + provides researchers with a powerful prototype for accessing an important corpus + BM21 21 of documents (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum); on the other hand, it displays + the potentialities of REVER and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other + domains. + D7.4 Prepare REVER for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of REVER are packaged as + Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM1 1 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 279 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM2 2 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 280 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM3 3 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 281 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + BM4 4 M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + + + + 282 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM5 5 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 283 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + BM7 7 ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + + + + 284 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM8 8 For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 285 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + BM9 9 in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + + + + 286 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM10 10 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM13 13 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + + + + 287 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + + + + 288 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM17 17 ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + + + + 289 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM19 19 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + + + 290 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM21 21 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 28.028,36 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + 291 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 56.056,72 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 110.462,52 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 292 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of sources>regesta algorithm + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of regesta>sources algorithm + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.823,12 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of the SW in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 293 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.283,78 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 294 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 305 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 30.032,14 30.032,14 + + 2 BM2 60.064,27 90.096,41 + + 3 BM3 108.791,69 198.888,10 + + 4 BM4 114.282,80 313.170,90 + + 5 BM5 114.282,80 427.453,70 + + 6 BM6 114.282,80 541.736,50 + + 7 BM7 114.282,80 656.019,30 + + 8 BM8 114.282,80 770.302,10 + + 9 BM9 114.282,80 884.584,90 + + 10 BM10 114.282,77 998.867,67 + + 13 BM13 114.282,80 1.113.150,47 + + 15 BM15 114.282,80 1.227.433,27 + + 17 BM17 114.282,80 1.341.716,07 + + 19 BM19 114.282,80 1.455.998,87 + + 21 BM21 85.490,22 1.541.489,09 + + + 36 WP title + uBIQUity + 37 WP number + 8 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 306 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 9 Dipartimento di Architettura CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + In accordance with RESILIENCE’s objectives, uBIQUity intends to develop, and provide the scientific community of religious sciences + with, a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient + commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. These commentaries contain an immense patrimony of religious + scholarship and are unique sources for the study of the knowledge and readings of these two sacred texts through the centuries. Intertextual + references, whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the + sacred texts “ubiquitous”; in addition, references to existing, real-world “places of religious memory” add a further layer of significance to + uBIQUity. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the “collective + memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. Connecting exegetical works to real-world (and + sometimes shared) places allows to open a new avenue for looking at religious commentaries, further empowering the RESILIENCE + research-enhancing services. + + Scope and goal + Building upon the wealth of pre-existing resources, uBIQUity will produce a more performant software prototype for a machine-learning + search engine. It will be specifically projected to identify with a higher degree of accuracy both explicit and non-explicit quotations and + allusions to the Bible and to the Qur’ān through two huge corpora: Christian and Islamic commentaries. Expanding beyond the textual + level, it also includes the capability of linking places referred to in the texts to existing (or once-existing) places, enhancing the + understanding of the religious context. This new research prototype might develop further applications in the research of intertextual + references in different kinds of literary production. + As source material, uBIQUity includes all edited commentaries on the Bible composed from the Patristic age until the Late Byzantine + period, both in Greek and Latin; all edited classical commentaries on the Qur’ān composed in Arabic from the rise of Islam until the + 15th century. + Regarding the current state of the art, the following can be noted: + - Commentaries on the Bible: today, the only tool available to find Biblical references in patristic works is BiblIndex + (https://www.biblindex.org/en). Limits of BiblIndex: 1) it does not directly search through the texts but only relies on Biblical passages + identified as such by the editors of each work; 2) the corpus of authors is characterised by remarkable lacunae (e.g., Augustine of Hippo); + intentionally, Byzantine and middle-Latin Biblical commentaries are excluded. Differently, it is possible to search for Biblical references + through the corpora of Greek and Latin works digitised and uploaded on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Thesaurus + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + + + 307 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + been uploaded; 2) they are not specifically devised to explore the use of Biblical quotations/allusions both in a quantitative and + qualitative perspective. + - Commentaries on the Qur’ān: the only tools that allow to find Qur’ānic quotations in the Islamic classical commentaries (tafsīr) are: al- + Mawsūa al- Shāmila (https://shamela.ws/category/3 and https://old.shamela.ws/index.php/category/127); Great Tafsirs + (https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_Library.aspx?Menu=1&LanguageID=1); Altafsir + (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID= + 1); Ğāmi al-Tafāsīr 3 (https://abrenoor.ir/ar/app/abrenoor_jamitafasir3). However, they do not contain all the tafsīr literature + already edited and do not have important functions such as the possibility of cross-references among commentaries, n-grams, statistics, + morphological and semantic analysis of words. + + uBIQUity will combine and implement (with approx. 20% of increased efficacy) the already existing resources by means of licence + agreements and collaboration with potential partners (e.g., TLG, TLL, Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum) and the adoption of + detecting plagiarism softwares (e.g., iThenticate) as well as corpus query tools (e.g., AntConc, Wordsmith). In addition, it opens a new + road for context understanding by linking textual and spatial elements with religious significance. Technicians will integrate the pre- + existing models with the most advanced methods of semantic word-embedding (e.g., word3vec) according to uBIQUity’s outcomes. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A8.1: Analysis and Prototyping: Preliminary scientific and technical work: analysis and mapping of the corpora, analysis of technical + requirements and scientific needs. + + A8.2.1: Scientific Preparation/IT: verification of the technical and scientific requirements, software experimenting, acquisition of software + licences. + A8.2.2: Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran: corpus acquisition and interaction with TLG, TLL; corpus acquisition and + interaction with Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum partners. + A8.2.3: Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation: linking of places and spaces described in Qu’ranic and Biblical texts and + commentaries to existing (or once-existing) places. + + A8.3: Development: Development of a software specifically aimed at recognizing and detecting Biblical and Qur’ānic quotations and + allusions in the corpora. + + A8.4: Test: deployment and testing of two websites (Biblical and Qur’ānic commentaries) hosted by a shared platform, which will + interoperate with the same software projected to work with three different alphabets and languages (Greek, Latin, and Arabic). + + A8.5: Operations: uBIQUity goes in production. Running uBIQUity on the two corpora, release of the service in RESILIENCE- + RI.EU platform, and publication of uBIQUity for marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The WP makes available a full set of digitised commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān written in the established + chronological frame. Texts will undergo a formal revision by specialists of Greek, Latin and Arabic. Where + necessary, texts will be lemmatized and morphologically tagged. The commentaries will be indexed according to the + author’s name / work titles / century. This work will contribute to building two databases that will be made + accessible to the scientific community. Users will be able to query the databases through different access keys. Each + commentary will be accompanied by an updated bibliography. Thanks to the results of this WP, researchers will be + able to quickly and accurately identify quotations/allusions in ancient commentaries on the sacred texts of + Christianity and Islam. Furthemore, more functions will be made available in uBIQUity, such as n-grams, statistics, + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + + + + 308 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + (also visual) subsets quotations/allusions found in commentaries according to their possible variant readings. + uBIQUity strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + search&find and collaboration tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation: + There are no databases specifically dedicated to ancient commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān. Some + commentaries have never been digitised and this first step will make an outstanding literary and exegetical heritage + available for researchers’ needs. The set of annexed instruments requires a Religious Studies expertise to be properly + laid out, and the Religious Studies scholarly community remains its primary target: the set of instruments, however, + will be auxiliary to other involved research fields, such as philology, textual criticism, history, and others. + With regards to the primary target domain, namely Religious Studies, the use of a more adequate and advanced + toolkit for concordances and text analysis is capable of allowing the achievement of significantly better results + compared to now. Semantic computational analysis will produce new research acquisitions. Reconstructing with the + highest degree of accuracy the way a text or an author dialogues with other texts or authors (through direct or + indirect, implicit, quotations, allusions, imitations or re-writings) means to clearly visualise and, hence, to be able to + explore more efficiently the continuous and unavoidable dialectic between past and present, tradition and + innovation, which lies at the very basis of hermeneutics. The proposed digital prototype aims at creating a shared + research instrument that will fill the gap resulting from the lack of a standard scientific approach. Besides, identifying + the range of quotations/allusions present in a certain author’s work will help visually reconstruct their Biblical or + Qur’ānic library, i.e., the number and kind of their readings. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D8.1.1 Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + This whitepaper describes the functions of the algorithms producing concordances + list, indicating possible allusions, and carrying out citation network analysis on the + BM6 6 corpora under scrutiny. The whitepaper also details how to prepare a corpus for + processing, even in different languages and alphabets, drawing from experience + obtained by working with the Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries. + + BM7 7 - + + D8.1.2 Whitepaper on uBIQUity + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of uBIQUity, intended as a + software that runs the algorithms and the functions described in D8.1.1 on two + BM8 8 twin websites (for Bible and Qur’an) hosted by a shared platform. This deliverable + details the type of operations that can be performed on the corpora, and collects + the results of preliminary testing, serving as a basis for the training material and the + documentation to be provided for uBIQUity. + + BM9 9 - + + + + + 309 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D8.1.3 Whitepaper on the results using UBIQUITY on Bible and Qur'anic + commentaries + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to uBIQUity, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It not only describes uBIQUity’s performances in theory (as with + D8.1.2), but it also presents the results of its operation “on the field”, thus acting + not only as a prototype or a scientific demonstrator, but as a potential instrument + for producing new knowledge and opening new roads for research. + + BM17 17 - + + D8.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM19 19 uBIQUity is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + package includes use-case samples (drawn from D8.1.3), as well as templates. + + D8.3 Publishing of new Bible and Qur'anic commentaries metadata on + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D8.1.2 and the documentation + written for D8.2, along with data prepared according to D.8.1.1 guidelines, are + combined in the release of two websites (for Bible and Qu’ran, each with their + relative commentaries), hosted by a shared platform through RESILIENCE and + powered by uBIQUity. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly community + BM21 21 a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and exploring the + connections between religious texts and their commentaries; on the other hand, + this displays the potentialities of uBIQUity, setting a new standard for tools + dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also for other domains. + D8.4 Prepare uBIQUity for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of uBIQUity are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + + + + 310 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + BM2 2 ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + + + + 311 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM3 3 ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + + + + 312 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM4 4 For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + + + + 313 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM5 5 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + + + + 314 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM6 6 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 315 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM7 7 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 316 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM8 8 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM9 9 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 317 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM10 10 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 318 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + + + + 319 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + + + + 320 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM17 17 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + + + + 321 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM19 19 ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + + + + 322 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + BM21 21 ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 323 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 30.032,14 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 60.064,27 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of the Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 108.791,69 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 324 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered; Approval of second release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.282,77 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 325 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.490,22 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + + + + 326 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 336 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 27.301,64 27.301,64 + + 2 BM2 54.603,28 81.904,92 + + 3 BM3 80.419,44 162.324,36 + + 4 BM4 83.395,04 245.719,40 + + 5 BM5 83.395,04 329.114,44 + + 6 BM6 83.395,04 412.509,48 + + 7 BM7 83.395,04 495.904,52 + + 8 BM8 83.395,04 579.299,56 + + 9 BM9 83.395,04 662.694,60 + + 10 BM10 83.395,07 746.089,67 + + 13 BM13 83.395,04 829.484,71 + + 15 BM15 83.395,04 912.879,75 + + 17 BM17 83.395,04 996.274,79 + + 19 BM19 83.395,04 1.079.669,83 + + 21 BM21 66.166,42 1.145.836,25 + + + 36 WP title + TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies + 37 WP number + 9 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 337 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + + 40 WP Leader + Stefano De Martino, Full Professor, OU10 UNITO-DSS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + The work package has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and + materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally + applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains two such instruments: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: tablets from the Near East. + - ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. + + Scope and goal + The tool prototypes developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope + and application. More in particular: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: cuneiform tablets from the Near East. + This prototype is dedicated to the collection and representation of the about two millions of cuneiform tablets and bullae documenting + history and religion(s) of the Near East. They are written in cuneiform writing but in different languages, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, + Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite, Hattic, Luwian, and Ugaritic. A significant part of them features religion-specific content, but their + accessibility remains an issue for contemporary scholars. In fact, the tablets are dispersed in several museums in the world, and can often + be accessed only through hand copies and photographs. Hand copies, however, are a subjective work and can contain mistakes. + Photographs, on the other hand, can represent only with great difficulty the curved surface of the tablet. Thus, neither of these traditional + methods can be considered satisfyingly accurate. Even physical access to the document is often not a viable option, because of their fragility + and/or because of unstable political situations in the places where they are stored and preserved. EnLil aims at making cuneiform tablets + accessible in a 3D virtual representation. We aim at testing all the available instrumentation on the collection of tablets in Torino (Musei + Reali) in order ro check the most reliable and low cost equipment. Some of the 3D photo instruments are very expensive and Middle + Eastern Museums cannot support these costs. After the survey of the available instrumentation we will be able to share with the producers + the needs required by the best high resolution 3DScan for the virtual representation of any possible object with a curved surface. A test + will be made on a collection of tablets (either in Turkey or in Iraq) with a virtual reconstruction of the building where the tablesìts had + been kept (MiRAr project). In addition, we will train members of the staff of some Turkish and/or Iraqi museums. Among the other + projects of representation of the cuneiform tablets, the most advanced is the project led by the Universities of Wuerzburg, Mainz and + Dortmund whose focus is analysing the characters of cuneiform writing and putting together the pieces of fragmented documents, while we + propose to reconstruct a virtual ancient library with its content. A collaboration with the aforementioned project is on our agenda. + - ACIS – Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. This prototype aims to merge the domains of archival digitization and informative + modelling by using artificial intelligence (AI) applications to serve as a shared information collection layer for EnLil and MiRAr. + The general objective of ACIS is therefore the systematisation and optimization of documentary knowledge, making archival, + bibliographic and iconographic sources interoperable and accessible through the extraction of innovative information from multimedia + digital archives based on deep learning techniques. In principle, ACIS also makes possible a layered 3d visualisation of the artefacts + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + + + 338 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + pertaining to each object. Modification and restoration vicissitudes, collection and exhibition history, visual and literary sources are + reconstructed and analysed comprehensively, as evidence of the "life" of artworks in relation to more general instances of change, including + mentality, taste, culture, materials, meaning and ideology, and social structure. The project also integrates the "future life" of works of art, + integrating knowledge of techniques, restoration practices and preventive maintenance protocols. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A9.1: Analysis and prototyping: recognition and experimenting of 3d acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS); + analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts); layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre- + processing of source archives (where needed); layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and + made available to ACIS and then to EnLil (for tablets and sites). + + A9.2: Scientific Preparation: acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; mapping of the history of conservation for works + of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of preservation, collector and museum history (for + ACIS); validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in the following activity (A9.3). + + A9.3: Development: development of software specified in A9.1, with a prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, + sites, artefacts); development of a repository as required by A9.1; enhancement and optimisation of 3d visualisation software for each of + the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + + A9.4: Test: the acquisition system is tested; the automatic metadatation prototype is tested; the optimised visualisation prototypes for + EnLil, ACIS are tested; testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated + for improvement of the prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + + A9.5: Operation: EnLil and ACIS are implemented and run on specific use-cases; the resulting databases are published on + RESILIENCE.EU; EnLil and ACIS are prepared for publication to RIs software marketplace such as EOSC/SSHOC, + CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The aim of TAURUS is to push forward our understanding of ancient religions by allowing researchers to access + documents in a new way. + In the case of written documents, with EnLil, it provides a technology for 3D acquisition and visualisation, which is + fundamental for objects that are fragile and tri-dimensional like cuneiform tablets and bullae; in addition, it enlarges + the corpus available to researchers, laying the foundation for further discovery, and locates them in the place of + discovery. + In the case of heritage artefacts, ACIS draws information from available archives and databases on the status and the + conservational history of each artefact. As such, it serves as a data source (or as a data enricher) for EnLil (when the + artefacts are tablets, and contextualised in space); additionally, it is also usable as a self-standing service for + visualisation of the single artefact (or artefact collection). + + TAURUS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + + Motivation + TAURUS optimises effort to overcome shortages of current tools available for Religious Studies and Archaeology + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + + + 339 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + 1)With EnLil, it overcomes the difficulty of the availability of the real cuneiform tablets and bullae by means of a + 3D-capable digital library, maximising exploitability of all the available data (content of the documents, their + materiality, state of preservation, lay out, palaeography of the writing, connections among texts coming from + different ages and countries, places of discovery) + 2)With ACIS, it makes available information on the transformations that artefacts have undergone in substance and + location. Through the history of restoration, it allows researchers and users to access the stories of objects but also + of the people who have observed, loved, stole, bought, stored, restored and studied them. Another effect of ACIS is + connected to issues of restoration and preventive conservation, a complex case where it is necessary to consider the + needs of the historic buildings and their relationship with the needs of the collections. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D9.1.1 Whitepaper on EnLil + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of EnLil , intended as a + software that performs 3D virtual representation and builds a virtual ancient + BM6 6 library. Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes + EnLil in its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in + subsequent phases. + + BM7 7 - + + D9.1.2 Whitepaper on ACIS + This whitepaper focuses on reconstructing the mechanisms of ACIS and + illustrating the links between existing sources and databases. There are two steps: + BM8 8 1) the definition of a protocol for the narration of the conservative history of the + artistic heritage and 2) the connection between diagnostic techniques and + preventive maintenance + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D9.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM15 15 TAURUS is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of two + training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + + D9.3.1 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - EnLil + BM17 17 The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + + + + 340 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by EnLil itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of EnLil. + D9.3.2 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - ACIS + The database created by using ACIS on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by ACIS itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototyp for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of ACIS. + + BM19 19 - + + D9.4 Prepare the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS) for publication to + RESILIENCE marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of the TAURUS toolkit + elements are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the software + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM1 1 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 341 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM2 2 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM3 3 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 342 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM4 4 ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + + + 343 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM5 5 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 344 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + + + + 345 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM8 8 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + + + 346 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM9 9 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM10 10 ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + + + + 347 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + BM13 13 ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + + + + 348 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM15 15 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM17 17 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 349 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM19 19 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + + + + 350 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM21 21 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 27.301,64 + + IO Desciption + + + + 351 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.603,28 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on EnLil + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 80.419,44 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on ACIS + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 352 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 83.395,07 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in PRODUCTION environment; second release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + + + 353 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 66.166,42 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + + + + 354 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 361 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 22.386,98 22.386,98 + + 2 BM2 44.773,97 67.160,95 + + 3 BM3 95.101,00 162.261,95 + + 4 BM4 101.788,50 264.050,45 + + 5 BM5 101.788,50 365.838,95 + + 6 BM6 101.788,50 467.627,45 + + 7 BM7 101.788,50 569.415,95 + + 8 BM8 101.788,50 671.204,45 + + 9 BM9 101.788,50 772.992,95 + + 10 BM10 101.788,55 874.781,50 + + 13 BM13 101.788,50 976.570,00 + + 15 BM15 101.788,50 1.078.358,50 + + 17 BM17 101.788,50 1.180.147,00 + + 19 BM19 101.788,50 1.281.935,50 + + 21 BM21 70.812,00 1.352.747,50 + + +36 WP title + ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond +37 WP number + 10 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 362 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + +40 WP Leader + Andrea D'Andrea, Senior Research Fellow, OU4 UNIOR-DAAM +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + This WP aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive dedicated to + complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it uses texts from + the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. About this case-study, the WP firstly produces an analysis of the most correct procedures + for the digitization and online publication of ancient texts and manuscripts; secondly, it sets out to develop a software able to support + scholars in the research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. The procedures and the software blueprint are intended to be + applicable to a diverse spectrum of texts, even beyond the case-study under scrutiny. + + Scope and goal + Many ancient textual documents from the Nile Valley and the other neighbour regions of north-eastern Africa, and the Near East deal + with religious content. They are written in hieroglyph, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Latin, and Coptic alphabet, Meroitic hieroglyph and + cursive, old Nubian script, epigraphic South Arabian, Arabic and Ge'ez script. The used languages are Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old + Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, Arabic and Ge‘ez. The support materials of the texts are stone, clay, + papyrus, parchment, pottery, wood. Consequently, the adopted tools range from the stylus to the cisel. + The chronology of these texts ranges from the end of the 4th millennium BC, with the earliest hieroglyph inscriptions, to the 15th century + AD, with the latest Old Nubian documents (later productions in Arabic and Coptic, mainly consist of manuscripts, lay beyond the scope + of this WP and can be covered in other RESILIENCE activities). The contents of these texts are very different and varied: descriptions + of religious ceremonies, funerary texts, prayers, incantations, lists of offerings and temple personnel, etc. + A data set of a large and rich selection of these texts (in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of + South Arabian, Ge‘ez, Arabic) is still lacking and only some partial digital archives are currently available. + As far as texts on stone and other hard supports are concerned, only very partial and unsystematic programs of scanning of inscriptions + and associated structures have been undertaken in the Nile Valley area. Still very recently (2016) teams working on the implementation + of partial corpora were relying on traditional, even if digital, photographic technique (see e.g., the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by the + Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents). Other projects, although adopting more technologically advanced procedures, including the + use of laser scanning technology, were focussing on a single site and a single type of writing support, like in the case of the von Humboldt + Universität project at in the Meroitic monumental complex at Musawwarat es-Sufra or of the Münich Museum project at the Meroitic + site of Naqa. “The Picturing Religion: The Philae Temple Graffiti Project” by the Simon Fraser University is ongoing at Philae, in + Egypt and is aimed at recording all the religious graffiti characterizing the temple. Similar activities of scanning rocky facades with rock + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + + + + 363 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + The automatic textual analysis was also only very rarely attempted in the study of the inscribed documents form the Nile valley. A very + famous and precocious, but very soon abandoned example was represented by Meroitic inscriptions and took place through the digitization + of the transliterated texts. In any case, as in the case of manuscripts, no attempts were made to integrate in a single procedure the scan of + the document, the analysis of its text and the analysis of the support. + In the case of funerary contexts, although some projects were undertaken for digitising tombs in the Nile valley, like in the case of the + Saite Saqqara Tombs Project of the University of Tübingen, this was not related to the analysis of the texts associated to the tombs and + of the writing support. + The same tardiness can be remarked in adopting digital technologies not only for recording but also for analysing texts on papyrus and the + writing support itself. Moreover, also in this case only specific projects on single collections can be remarked, like in the case of the ongoing + TPOP project in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. + Even in the case of manuscripts (and other texts on soft supports, such as papyrus, parchment etc.) from the Nile Valley, only specific + and sometimes partial projects were conducted so far (see a list at Digitized Manuscript Collections - A Research Guide to Middle + Eastern Studies - Guides at Penn Libraries (upenn.edu)). So far no attempts were made to relate the scanning of the manuscripts to the + automatic identification and analysis of the text, as well as to the analysis of the writing support. Moreover, the lack of suitable portable + equipment should be lamented, as this greatly limits the possibility of recording large collections of manuscripts kept in far and remote + locations. + Even when attempts were made to conduct an automatised linguistic analysis of the texts, like, e.g. the one conducted on Sahidic Coptic + manuscripts by the University of Colorado, the textual analysis was unrelated to the implementation of a digital reproduction of the + manuscript and to the analysis of the writing support. + + ReTINA aims to create an environment that in the first place lays out and optimises common guidelines for the digitisation and digital + archiving of such a diverse array of sources, accounting for the challenges posed by the very different languages and writing support types. + Secondly, building on these guidelines, it aims to produce a blueprint and a prototype of a software tool for supporting scholars in the + research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. In the third place, it uses the guidelines, the software prototype and domain- + specific expertise to lay out specifications for hardware that can be used to acquire texts in different support even in difficult environments + (because of climatic, political, or economical reasons). + The interconnection between the merely textual element and the religious component, given by the very nature of the texts under scrutiny, + allows ReTINA to go beyond the linguistic aspect, assisting researchers with the necessary information on context, religious significance + and religious history that allow to improve the interpretation of the analysed documents. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A10.1: Analysis. This activity is focused on selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from + different times, regions, languages and supports. + + A10.2: Scientific preparation. Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing of the datasets and description of the original contexts of + relevance with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts. + + A10.3: Development. This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the + complexity of the case study. The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process. Finally, it develops + a software prototype for annotation and visualisation of the texts. + + A10.4: Test. This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3 + + A10.5: Operations. This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for + release in the RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and + scientific point of view. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + + + + 364 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + ReTINA empowers RESILIENCE RI by implementing a digital archive containing some datasets of religious + content from sites in the ancient world along the Nile Valley and its surroundings, including various languages and + cultures. Starting with a comprehensive review of the state of the art in the field of study (white paper) and using + digital datasets available to the research unit, a data model will be designed. The schema will be consistent with the + main international metadata standards, taxonomies and thesauri and will be published as Open Data and/or Linked + Open Data to encourage the spread of the principles of FAIR data and, more generally, of Open Science in this area + of study. Some mapping procedures, which will allow to carry out a data-integration among data encoded according + to different schemas, will be designed, and implemented to facilitate the integration of various datasets and + heterogenous archives. + The goal is achieved through completion of several steps, examining digital datasets already directly available to + UNIOR or through agreements in place with Italian Museums and Archives to highlight strengths and weaknesses + in the sharing and reuse of data. At the same time, other paper archives (cards, photos, texts, etc.) will be digitised + according to a data scheme developed by UNIOR. + The digital archives will be compared and integrated thanks to the semantic and syntactic interoperability guaranteed + by the adoption of international metadata. The texts, appropriately transliterated, will be able to be annotated by the + users who will also be able to visualise the support of the text in 3D and have precise information on the material + used to inscribe the subject with religious content. Different digitisations approaches and 3D technologies will be + tried to identify ways to digitally acquire these materials; the results will give important results on the best practices + to create digital resources compliant with the requisite of RESILIENCE. + + ReTINA strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + ReTINA addresses a gap in the digital description and fruition of Religious Texts in ancient and rare script and from + complex contexts by optimising a shared data model and by producing software prototype for fruition. The domain- + specific character of Religious Studies, where the linguistic significance of the texts must be linked to specific + historical, theological and cultural factors, allows to account for descriptors that go beyond the merely linguistic + level, and can lay the basis for further digitisation works. The fragmented context of the Nile Valley case-study + represents a microcosmos that can be extended to other equally (or more) fragmented contexts: ReTINA therefore + represents a prototype that, thanks to digitisation and complex visualisation, can increase knowledge and + understanding even beyond the Nile Valley. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + BM6 6 This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + + + + 365 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + BM6 6 archives on ancient religious content, and serves as a basis for the further + development of ReTINA. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 . + + D10.2: Preliminary Data-Model + This deliverable contains the schema for encoding texts and manuscripts according + BM9 9 to Open Science principles, accounting for the different supports and for the + specificities due to the religious nature of the texts. + + D10.3: Data-acquisition procedures + This deliverable validates the preliminary data-model, and completes it by + BM10 10 describing procedures to digitise texts and manuscripts and to enrich the + digitisation with 3D data, chemical and Mineralogical data etc. + + BM13 13 - + + D10.4: Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface + This deliverable consists of a prototype of ReTINA, a software prototype for + BM15 15 annotating texts and manuscripts according to the specifications of D10.3,for + archiving, and for visualising the annotated texts and the relative + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D10.5 Prepare ReTINA for publication to RESILIENCE RI marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of ReTINA are packaged + BM21 21 as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. In addition the validated guidelines + are published for re-use by the scholarly community + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 366 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM2 2 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 367 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + BM3 3 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM4 4 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 368 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM5 5 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + + + + 369 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM6 6 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM7 7 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 370 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM8 8 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 371 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM9 9 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + + 372 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM10 10 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + + + + 373 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + BM15 15 ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + + + + 374 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM17 17 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM19 19 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 375 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM21 21 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 376 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 22.386,98 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 44.773,97 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on digital archives on ancient religious content + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 95.101,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts for ReTINA + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 377 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 101.788,55 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 378 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Document delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in PRODUCTION environment; second release of Prototype + for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Application of ReTINA data model and annotator to the case-study corpora + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 70.812,00 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + + + + 379 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + + + + + 387 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 6.163,05 6.163,05 + + 2 BM2 54.314,50 60.477,55 + + 3 BM3 49.812,90 110.290,45 + + 4 BM4 49.812,90 160.103,35 + + 5 BM5 49.812,90 209.916,25 + + 6 BM6 49.812,90 259.729,15 + + 7 BM7 49.812,90 309.542,05 + + 8 BM8 49.812,90 359.354,95 + + 9 BM9 49.812,90 409.167,85 + + 10 BM10 49.812,85 458.980,70 + + 13 BM13 49.812,90 508.793,60 + + 15 BM15 49.812,90 558.606,50 + + 17 BM17 49.812,90 608.419,40 + + 19 BM19 26.385,58 634.804,98 + + 21 BM21 1.479,13 636.284,11 + + + 36 WP title + Trans-National Access + 37 WP number + 11 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 388 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP11 is dedicated to the management of Trans-National Access activities, which includes: administrative effort to ensure the proper + development of the process from the call to the payment of the grants; provision of all necessary equipment for TNA grant-holders to + develop their research; coordination with the RESILIENCE TNA programme. + + Scope + ITSERR Transnational Access Programme offers physical and virtual access to the most significant tools and sources in the field of + religious studies. + This offer is unique, because it combines data of institutions participating in ITSERR, thus offering knowledge that is of high importance + not only for scholars, but also for decision makers from society and policy. The transnational access service is an answer to the need of + scholars to have direct and effective access to the objects of their research, which are preserved in different institutions. Often these collections + neither have been digitised nor can be uploaded without restricted access. + Through its Transnational Access Programme ITSERR offers support and expertise for research stays at Italian centres and libraries + that hold relevant collections for the study of religions. These institutions grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, + documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies. + The aim of ITSERR is to facilitate and foster a sophisticated and advanced TNA system to sources, resources, expertise and services for + researchers in Religious Studies and related disciplines which are available within ITSERR, ensure an efficient access workflow and a + single entry point. To provide excellence-driven access to its physical resources, ITSERR offers assistance to researchers seeking to conduct + a research visit at one of the partner facilities offering this type of access. The goal of the research visits is to grant scholars direct and + effective access to the objects of their research. This includes access to research material and instructions to effectively make use of it as well + as a work place at the facility. Furthermore, ITSERR aims at matching all successful TNA applicants with experts at the facilities who + can guide them or offer advice on the subject of study. + Moreover, to cover all disciplines involved in the study of religions in all their facets and provide the widest range of relevant materials and + expertise, ITSERR seeks to include further partners into its TNA program. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + - 120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated number of 50 users + - 108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + + Activities + A11.1 TNA Services Brainstorming: based on the deliverables existing within RESILIENCE, the Consortium brainstorms on the + best ways to provide TNA services to the ITSERR Italian Researchers ecosystem. This activity leads to the creation of the TNA + Management Plan. + + A11.2 Planning of TNA activities: A list of the resources that could be made available to the TNA users is finalised and a calendar of + the Call for Proposal publication is established. + + + + 389 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A11.3 Execution of TNA activities: The Call for proposals are published following the plan established. A Peer Review Committee is + set-up to read, qualify and select the best proposals submitted by the TNA candidates. When the candidates are selected, the TNA + administration organises all the visits for the different resources. + + A11.4 TNA activities follow-up: This activity, started with the Call for Proposal, aims at continuously collecting feedback from all + ITSERR TNA stakeholders and synchronising the TNA strategy and planning with RESILIENCE. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and manages the TNA Services to be provided within WP3 to WP10 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The access policy is formalised, published within an ITSERR TNA Management Plan and a first set of TNA calls + for proposal are implemented. + Researchers are put in the condition of knowing what RESILIENCE services are offered, what are the benefits of + accessing them, where they are accessible and following which procedure, etc. For those services requiring an + excellence-driven access mode RESILIENCE puts in place a fully operational TNA call-cycle. Such a call system, + accessible to physical and digital services already in place and running at RESILIENCE facilities, is made operational + during this project. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + -120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated + number of 50 users + -108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + -All performed over 4 calls for proposals published each semester + With respect to physical access, the RI assumes as the unit of access: + -a week for individuals and/or teams willing to access facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place + and running, since a week is an appropriate amount of time to use the material instruments of research (archives, + libraries, collections). A week is a unit of access that grants the needed acquaintance with the documents and sources + and their effective use within the research activity. In the TNA programme organised by the RESILIENCE Starting + Community, ReIReS, users usually spent two weeks at the TNA provider to develop their project. + -A month for individuals and/or teams willing to access the working groups and research teams of ITSERR in its + technical development, allowing their participation in the making of the services. + + This TNA programme strengthens particularly the RESILIENCE supply of research-enhancing services in its + physical access mode, and most importantly works as a case-study to further the RESILIENCE development of + TNA activities (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + BM1 1 quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + BM2 2 - + + + + + 390 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM5 5 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM8 8 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM13 13 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM15 15 - + + + + 391 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + BM21 21 ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM1 1 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + BM2 2 The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + + + + 392 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM2 2 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM3 3 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + BM4 4 level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + + + + 393 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM5 5 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + BM6 6 approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + + + + 394 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM7 7 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM8 8 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + BM9 9 ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + + + + 395 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM10 10 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + BM13 13 ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + + + + 396 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM15 15 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM17 17 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + + + + 397 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM19 19 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM21 21 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + + + + 398 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 6.163,05 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.314,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + First TNA Call published + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Second TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 399 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Third TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 49.812,85 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Fourth TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + + + + 400 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 26.385,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 1.479,13 + + IO Desciption + Last version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access + operations and research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + + + + + 401 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + TNA activities follow-up + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 406 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 407 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 225.784,62 225.784,62 + + 2 BM2 255.054,54 480.839,16 + + 3 BM3 293.681,45 774.520,61 + + 4 BM4 293.681,45 1.068.202,06 + + 5 BM5 255.054,54 1.323.256,60 + + 6 BM6 216.427,63 1.539.684,23 + + 7 BM7 216.427,63 1.756.111,86 + + 8 BM8 216.427,63 1.972.539,49 + + 9 BM9 216.427,63 2.188.967,12 + + 10 BM10 216.427,60 2.405.394,72 + + 13 BM13 216.427,63 2.621.822,35 + + 15 BM15 216.427,63 2.838.249,98 + + 17 BM17 271.638,34 3.109.888,32 + + 19 BM19 271.638,34 3.381.526,66 + + 21 BM21 204.662,23 3.586.188,89 + + + 36 WP title + Project and Impact Management + 37 WP number + 1 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 1 WP Duration 42 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 408 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Carlo Meghini, Director of Research, OU 1 CNR-ISTI + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + The Project Management and Impact WP is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the + project to achieve its objectives and to evaluate its impact in the short and long term. It is therefore an activity that oversees all WPs. + The activities managed by WP1 produce excellent individual results for each WP but collectively integrated within the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem and by spreading these results through various market places (e.g., SSHOC, CLARIN, DARIAH, etc.), they will + generate a chain reaction of new research data, capacities, interconnections, exploitation, etc. becoming far more than the sum of individual + WP results. + To support the work conducted by scientific and technical teams, therefore, the WP aims at: + Implementing the ITSERR governance structure, and ensuring partners’ coordinated and cooperative work; + Guaranteeing the guidance, cooperation, synergy and synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE; + Monitoring the progress of the whole project and of the single WPs and managing contingencies; + Identifying risks and implementing effective control measures; + Monitoring the quality of the deliverables produced and the respect of progress indicators; + Ensuring the respect of security measures for the deliverables produced and the services provided; + Managing the human resources involved in the project; + Implementing a communication strategy for the project and coordinating its activities within RESILIENCE; + Identifying and organising training activities for the human resources involved in the project; + Detailing the RESILIENCE socio-economic ex ante impact study for the Italian context, in terms of effective impact cases, to be + evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms. + Endorse and adapt the RESILIENCE impact measurement methodology to ITSERR to identify, evaluate and quantify the project’s + impact in the long term in its different areas of action (science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources); + Ensure ITSERR sustainability beyond the 30 months of duration of the project. + + Summary of activities + + + + 409 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Summary of activities + A1.1 Governance set-up: During this activity, the ITSERR management team will perform the following activities: + - Organisation of the Kick-off event + - Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: + - Detailed Organisation Plan (See D1.1) + - Quality Assurance Plan (See D1.2) + - Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3) + - Security Management Plan(See D1.5) + - Set-up of the entire management and governance structures of ITSERR: Board of Directors (BoD); Steering Committee; International + Advisory Board (IAB) and Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF) + - Organisation of WP Staff Trainings + - Organised the synchronisation of knowledge, resources, software and services with RESILIENCE + - Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners + - Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + - Organise the closure event and submit the final report to the Ministry + - Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + + A1.2 Monitoring: During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager will lead the management of the following activities: + - Daily team stand-up + - Weekly monitoring + - Cross-project follow-up + - Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting + - HR Monitoring + - Impact Monitoring + - Scientific coordination + - Project Management activities performed by the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders + - Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager + - Security Mgt/Monitoring activities under the responsibilities of the Security Officer + + A1.3 to A1.6 Finance & Admin Management for the different partner institutions: cover the project financial duties, administrative + aspects, Human Resources management and support of the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management. + This WP targets excellence in all domains but specifically in the recruitment as it is a key factor of success for the project. Our excellence + strategy is based on the following activity aspects: + - Candidates’ sourcing strategy for an “Excellent satisfactory capacity”: targeting partners departments providing excellence in their + research fields and pre-selection of Italian companies delivering already thousands of ICT staff in Italy; + - High competence: strict and professional qualification process mostly relying on the specialised technical support from our specialised + researchers. All profiles and skills required are described in a skills matrix shared among all recruiters. + - Professional, specialised and innovative qualification material created by our HR team with our Cluster of Competences (CC) composed + by the best researchers and technologists in the domain + - Technical interviews led by Specialised staff from the CC + - The Resource Pool (RP) has an adequate size (2 times the size of the ITSERR yearly staffing plans). + - The content of the RP (incl. CVs) is always accurate and up-to-date. + - Continuous recruitment: implemented by two approaches: 1)Continuous selection of candidates to feed a Resource Pool (RP) exceeding + ITSERR Staffing Plans (reviewed monthly, quarterly & yearly) 2) including a special recruitment strategy for unplanned situations + + A1.7 Impact Management: This activity acts as a transversal WP activity which cooperates with all other WPs to develop an impact + measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact in the long term in its different areas of action such as + science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources. This activity will produce the D1.4 Impact Analysis Report + (IAR). + + A1.8 Communication Management: based on the Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3), the communication team will create + and implement the ITSERR CDP, develop new or updated communication means like flyers, banners etc. + + + + + 410 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A1.9 Training Management: Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and + RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) + necessary to create a ITSERR training framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and + methods to support researchers in using RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + The WPs 2 to 12 are governed by WP1 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + All ITSERR activities are meant to produce key building blocks to the 50+ research services of the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem. + It is correct to state that each WP produces prototype/products and new research (meta)data within a specific area. + But to create a chain reaction of added-value, ITSERR ensures the interoperability and reusability of all data, + software and services produced within the project. + From a scientific point of view, ITSERR includes key scientists who are aware of each other’s activities, specificities + and methodologies, and have a long-standing history of cooperation, as witnessed, for instance, by the recently + launched national PhD course in religious studies. From a technical point of view, the following points apply: + - All WP Leaders meet weekly within the Steering Committee to monitor that activities are progressing as planned + and that resources usage is optimal. + - All WP software requirements are architected and designed by the same architecture team to ensure that a software + re-used existing/shared components, that a software output could be reused as an input to another system, that + systems can be interconnected among themselves but also with other stakeholders (e.g. publishers, GLAM, etc.) + - All Data requirements are modeled by the same Data Management Team to ensure ontological, semantic and + syntactic interoperability not only within RESILIENCE RI ecosystem but more generally with the majority of DH + ecosystems. + - Experience and knowledge generated within each individual WP is centralized and processed to create new + learning material such as best practices for specific research area, , toolkit user guidance, new methods for exploiting + specific research material, etc. + ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and + skills, intersected with the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have + been chosen on the basis of the scientific excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by + the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding them. The maintenance of the balance between these + elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1. This WP dedicated to project and impact management is vital to the + project because it guarantees coherence with the RESILIENCE RI and delivers the following outcomes: + ●guarantee an adequate identification, coordination and monitoring of the project resources, aims, objectives and + activities + ●ensure an interdisciplinary work within and in-between religious sciences and information sciences; + ●professional communication and dissemination from start to finish + ●guarantee the magnitude of the impact that projects contributing to the construction of an SSH-related research + infrastructure usually have on the involved institutions, the areas where they invest their funds, the societies directly + and indirectly benefiting from them, the human resources they rely on. + ●Quality of the deliverables is assured through strict quality control policies and frequent monitoring + ●Security is ensured for all deliverables and services produced for the Digital Humanities research community + ●All our staff is sufficiently trained to ensure the usage and benefit of our management and development + infrastructures. + One of the most important outcomes though, is the fact that all software and services, including the training and + documentation material, are provided professionally on the ITSERR research community and that we also provide a + service desk to all researchers in need of these products and services. + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + + + + 411 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + produce innovation in science and markets (including the labour market), thus WP1 transforms such a challenge into + the ITSERR organisational and management structures. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D1.1: Detailed Organisational Plan (DOP): The DOP is the plan completely + documenting the project management, its development and tooling, the + organisation governance (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.3), the management processes + (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.4) and also templates supporting the reporting activity. + The consortium management structure consists of a total of four entities, decision + making and advisory bodies. + ●Board of Directors (BoD) consists of the IM, the Scientific Coordinator, + RESILIENCE CEO, a Principal Investigator (PI) of UNIPA and a PI of + UNIMORE. The Board elects a Chair and oversees the ultimate decisions on all + strategic choices and issues concerning the development of ITSERR. The BoD + reviews all WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy and allowing to reach + excellence in the contract outcomes. The fact that the RESILIENCE CEO is + present on the board helps to reinforce the guidance, cooperation, synergy and + synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE. The BoD + meets bi-monthly. + ●Steering Committee: chaired by the IM and composed of the Quality Manager + (QM), the Security Officer (SO), all Team Leaders (TLs) and all WP leaders + (WPLs). This committee reviews the delivery of the WP outcomes in due time and + with the expected quality. They are the warrants of the scientific and technological + excellence produced within the WPs. They meet monthly and produce a Service + Monitoring Report (D1.5) each two months submitted to the Board. + ●International Advisory Board (IAB) consists of 9 representatives of major + international academic institutions and of major stakeholders of the project and + ensures advice and evaluation on the general strategy of the project, providing an + BM1 1 independent view on the effectiveness of the accomplishment of the objectives of + the project and on the impact of its outcome within and outside the academic field. + The IAB receives key WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy to be + assessed and debated with the objective to reach excellence in the contract + outcomes. They will meet each semester. + ●Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF): the ESFRI Stakeholders Forum is a newly + established platform, developed by ESFRI with the ambition to instigate an open + dialogue among the different European research infrastructure stakeholders, to + reinforce the position of RIs as an essential pillar of the European Research Area. + ITSERR annually hosts its stakeholders (public and private research entities, + companies, policy and decision-makers, citizens) in a similar framework, aiming at + the enhancement of networking activities, shared decision-making, knowledge and + technology transfer. One key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR + (findable, etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, + H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. + ITSERR will use Design Thinking and Agile/Scrum as core approaches as there + are in Italy a large pool of such trained experts. Scrum is well suited for its agility, + fast developments of new developments as well as evolutive maintenance for such + research-based, fast changing projects. + To respect Italian and EU accessibility directives and provide accessible services + and tools to the Italian Digital Humanities community, our teams will also endorse + usability and accessibility standards such as accessibility standards (i.e. WCAG 2.1, + ATAG, UAAG and XAG, etc.). For ensuring security-proofed development and + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + + + + 412 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + WP1.5 and WP1.6). For technical documentation, their scope and content are + specified by endorsed development standards such as Rational Unified Process + (RUP). + The European Commission PM² Methodology is the project management + methodology adopted by ITSERR. It is a lean and easy to implement methodology + suitable for any type of project as it enables project teams to manage projects + effectively and deliver solutions and benefits to their organisations and + stakeholders. + + D1.2: Quality Assessment Plan (QAP): Based on ISO 9001 quality approach + principles, a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), imposed on all WPs, will define the + quality expectations for the scope and duration of the contract. The Quality + Indicators of the QAP are always two-fold: 1) Scientific: targeting the scientific + excellence expected by the project and 2) Technical: assessing the methodological + and technical requirements that the deliverable must satisfy to be approved. The + QAP aims to ensure that all activities performed as part of the project comply with + the RESILIENCE’s policies, methodologies, WP requirements and RESILIENCE + quality governance framework. + + D1.3 Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP): The plan adapts the C&D + strategy of RESILIENCE to ITSERR, guaranteeing a sound coordination on + what, how, when and to whom is communicated to the Italian and European + targeted audiences. It covers topics such as strategy for online communication, + social media collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, conferences and workshops, + feedback management, corporate design, tools, channels, touchpoints, monitoring, + analytics and reporting. + + D1.5: Security Management Plan (SMP): The Security Management Plan will be + elaborated to define all aspects of the working practices of the project to guarantee + secure delivery. It will contain a Secure Coding/Development Guidelines aligned + with “ISO/IEC 27034 Information technology – Security techniques”, the + OWASP Developer Guide, Testing Guide and Top-10 Application Security Risks. + Adherence to these guidelines will be strictly monitored by the Security Officer + through, in example code reviews, to ensure the security and quality of the + deliverables. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report and Meeting: The contract execution progress is + presented to the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report + which includes at least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + BM2 2 D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + + + + 413 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM2 2 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM3 3 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM4 4 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + + + + 414 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM5 5 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM6 6 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + BM7 7 the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 415 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM8 8 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM9 9 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + BM10 10 description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + + + + 416 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM13 13 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM15 15 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + BM17 17 submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + + + + 417 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM19 19 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.4 Impact Analysis Report (IAR)(M30): The document reports on the metrics + and indicators of the RESILIENCE impact, the methodology chosen to identify + and measure them according to the RESILIENCE impact areas. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM21 21 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.7: Closure Report(M30): ITSERR management team will provide at the + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + + + + 418 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + the contract and their final status, as well as the financial summary on the + expenses. + The final report shall also include: + ●The Service Level measurement report. + ●Pain points and lessons learned. + ●Improvements that took place during the contract. + ●Knowledge base content and its future evolution. + ●Human resources skills / competencies and training + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + BM1 1 Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + + + + 419 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM2 2 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 420 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + BM3 3 For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + + + + 421 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Number of report not meeting the content + requirements; Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM4 4 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + + + + 422 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + BM5 5 IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + + + + 423 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM6 6 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + + + + 424 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + 425 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + BM7 7 the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + + + + 426 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + BM8 8 conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + + + + 427 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + BM9 9 KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + + + + 428 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM10 10 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + + + + 429 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + BM13 13 KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + + + + 430 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM15 15 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + + + + 431 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + BM17 17 incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + + + + 432 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM19 19 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + + + + 433 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + + 434 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + BM21 21 Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + + + + 435 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 225.784,62 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + + + 436 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report deilvered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 216.427,60 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered,WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 437 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit; ; WPs Security Audit + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 204.662,23 + + IO Desciption + Reports delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication + Manager, Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; + licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 438 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the + project; project management training; language courses + + 48 Activity title + Governance set-up + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_01_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_01_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aa97b5f --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_01_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,651 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_02_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_02_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0057a6f --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_02_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + There are various investigation techniques for arriving at clearer requirements. Considering that users are often unsure about the + requirements, the support of a technical staff member is sometimes necessary. During the first months of the project, the DC Operations + Team will gather the requirements avoiding the eventual problems that can occur in collecting requirements: + ●Lack of relevance to the objectives of the service + ●Lack of clarity or ambiguity in the wording + ●Duplication between requirements + + At the end, the Service Level Requirements (See D2.1) will cover at least the following aspects: + ●ITSERR DCS plans and strategy + ●Vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the ITSERR as a Whole, and of the various WPs + ●Legislative requirements + ●Governance requirements + ●Budgeting and accounting requirements + ●Balanced scorecard + ●Service level requirements and targets + ●Service portfolio and service catalogue + ●Service review meetings + ●Customer satisfaction surveys + ●Continuous Services Improvement (CSI) initiatives already logged in the CSI register + ●Service models + + + 157 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Service models + ●Service Design Package + ●Benchmark and baseline data + ●Risk assessments and risk mitigation plans + + The Services Level Requirements document will be submitted for approval to the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders and will + be signed off before its analysis. + From the SLR accepted, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (See Deliverable + 2.2) of RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. To obtain the best services support, the ITSERR + DCS team will maintain regular contacts with the RESILIENCE DCS team during all phases of the project. + Then the DCS team starts proposing solutions in terms of software and services. These are discussed with the various team members and + the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + + + + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 55.338,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.873,66 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + + + + + 158 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + DC Services Support + 49 Activity short name + 2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS team prepares documentation and training material for the WP teams to ensure a shared knowledge of the management and + security services and principles to be respected. + They will also assist the WP teams during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and set in production). + The DCS Team will be in close contact with the RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 189.819,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + + 159 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 13.287,33 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Implementation + 49 Activity short name + 2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 40 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS ITSERR team synchronises periodically with the RESILIENCE team to verify the status of the DC services and software + available on resilience-ri.eu. + From this information, the software licence necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services are ordered. + Then the DCS team proceeds with the installation of the solutions (See an example in the annexed figure WP2.1) and starts testing + their operationality. The team proceeds with the installation of the first mandatory environments including: + ●the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, change management, staff + time management, etc. + ●The WPs development environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle management, documentation lifecycle + management, etc. + ●The operation management including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services availability, logging, services performance, + etc. + + When the WPs teams will start deploying their software, a key mission of the DCS Team is to maintain operational and up-to-date the + software stack required by each WP. Among this stack is the RESILIENCE Toolkit composed of new/existing, shared and re-usable + components/services. As explained in WP3, and also in WP4 to WP10, the ITSERR Architecture and Design team will design all + WPs software solutions and will make sure that each time it is possible, an identical functionality will only be developed once and + eventually re-use existing code or software services already deployed in RESILIENCE or other RIs. During the pre-analysis of the WP + scope, the ITSERR team already identified some components that will be potentially re-used as presented in the annexed figure WP2.4. + 54 Activity budget + + + + + 160 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.435.287,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 100.470,12 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_03_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_03_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b6d46fa --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_03_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,512 @@ + + 114 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION, domain-specific testing of + prototype and scientific coordination and support of Analysis and Development teams; its goal is to oversee and direct the development of + CRITERION carried out in A3.2.1 and A3.3 in order to ensure that the prototype corresponds to the needs of the scientific + community. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 213.887,44 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.972,12 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 115 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/CRITERION + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in software research and prototyping for CRITERION. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 116 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Talmud Bavli, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the analysis and preparation of the Talmud Bavli corpus for GNORM; it prepares guidelines for corpus pre- + processing for GNORM, as far as the Talmud Bavli case-study is concerned; it subsequently performs the corpus building and pre- + processing for GNORM (Talmud Bavli), according to the specified guidelines; it also carries out domain-specific testing of the GNORM + prototype, with relation to the Talmud Bavli corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 117 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 3.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of developing the software required for T-ReS tools, carrying out the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design + task ensures that: + + + 118 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)CRITERION development: this task develops CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor prototype, in cooperation with the scientific + team in charge of A3.2.1. It also develops the plug-in system for CRITERION, and it produces a collation analysis plug-in. + 3)GNORM development: it develops the (meta)data extraction system for GNORM through algorithm optimisation and layout + analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of knowledge extraction + algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. It also produces the architecture of the database where + extracted properties are stored. + 4)GNORM visualisation: it develops a visualisation frontend for GNORM, to allow 3D visualisation and fruition according to users’ + needs and requirements. + 5)T-ReS, general: it develops a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, in order to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR. + All this is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.487.778,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 104.144,46 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 119 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 3.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test CRITERION and GNORM. + Although this may look as an almost final stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the + testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the + conditions of use, etc. + + Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of + CRITERION and GNORM, for the WYSIWYG editor in one case, and for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli) in the other. In addition, this activity tests the T-ReS shared library by coordinating with activities A3.3 and A3.2.1 + and with other WPs; finally, it collects feedback from users of CRITERION and GNORM prototypes, to assist in producing + documentation for the prototypes. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + + 120 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 3.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is properly run, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. + It also sets up GNORM and the databases for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli) for Continuous + Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release- + ready state. + The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. For CRITERION, it ensures that a dedicated community + forum is set up, while for T-ReS it deploys the shared library in coordination with other WPs. + Finally, it ensures that the prototypes of CRITERION and GNORM are released and published for the RESILIENCE + marketplace. + + + + 121 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 103.380,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.236,60 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 3.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 122 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary IT work for the development of T-ReS. The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic + understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. + In particular, the activity explores and evaluates text editors capable of producing critical editions for CRITERION, and evaluates + source material and suitable software tools for GNORM; it also analyses features required by a shared library for ITSERR software + tools and, elaborates prototypes for the tools; finally, it produces scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 172.500,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 136.620,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.490,67 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + + + + 123 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in algorithmic research for GNORM. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + + + + 124 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Corpus Iuris Canonici, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 8 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to: + 1) the analysis and preparation of guidelines for corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici; + 2)application of guidelines and corpus building for GNORM (Corpus iuris canonici); + 3)domain-specific supervision on the testing of the prototype with relation to the Corpus Iuris Canonici case-study. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 125 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_04_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_04_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..13544c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_04_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,534 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 202 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 7 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the Greek and Latin texts of the Creed, to prepare them for analysis through + DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.652,28 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations + + + + 203 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the texts of the Creed in the translations defined in A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, to prepare + them for analysis through DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + + + + 204 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation; in a second stage, it oversees + the development activity (A4.3) in its realisation/adaptation of software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation, + ensuring that it remains in line with the scientific principles formulated in A4.1. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 205 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/general + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise. + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities and it validates technical and + scientific requirements, with the assistance of domain-specific experts for IT and for Religious Studies and by coordinating with other WP + activities. + It checks that software development and corpus preparation are performed in accordance with the technical and domain-specific + requirements, and it assists in updating these requirements when needed. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 206 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 27.912,56 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.641,33 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 4.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + 207 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up DaMSym and the database on the Creed for + Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always + in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for DaMSym, based on the works of A4.1-A4.4. + 2)It provides that DaMSym goes into production and that the database for the Creed powered by DaMSym is published for + RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + It provides that DaMSym’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + + + + 208 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 4.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test DaMSym. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. + The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their + problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, who + provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of DaMSym, for research on the two case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, + updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products + offered to the researchers. + In particular, DaMSym is tested first in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation), in order to assess KPIs and + assist the Development activity (A4.3), then DaMSym is tested its pre-release form (as a full software tool for analysis of the Creed), for + collecting user and scientific feedback. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,04 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 209 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 4.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity aims at finalising all the work validated by the previous phases, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this task brings different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and lead to smarter, more + sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + + + + 210 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)Training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding on the target languages, collecting training data from freely-available sources and + from the digital texts collected in A4.2 + 3)Optimisation and fine-tuning of the most performant toolkit component for word embedding on original texts, and on the translations + (at least 5 languages in 3 different non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets). + 4)Development and training of text understanding and classification tools for the digital texts collected in A4.2, on the basis of an + assessment of existing neural network architectures (e.g. GPTx-like) + 5)Development of an API that turns word embedding vector clusters into properties stored in a graph database (such as Neo4J). + 6)Development of an API for automatically annotating the vector clusters contained in the database as standoff properties in texts of the + corpus. + 7)Development of a machine translation API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 8)Development of a text classification API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 9)Implementation of functions for the standoff properties platform, in synergy with the T-ReS library, to be performed on the whole set of + different language corpora, and finalisation of DaMSym as an accessible software prototype for researchers and other users. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 800.538,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 56.037,65 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 211 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 4.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary work for the development of DaMSym. + The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This + involves consulting researchers and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the corpus of interest related to + the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, through engaging with researchers to produce a recognition of the corpus, analysing the digital and + non digital texts to be included and expressing the research issues involved. + To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this activity, for the corpus on the Creed and for + DaMSym as a software. + In parallel, digital resources for the languages involved are analysed, and tools for the required text processing functions (word embedding + extraction, properties database organisation, standoff properties platform) are explored. + This results in a formulation of technical requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 212 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/case-study + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of collecting the corpus for the Creed and its translations, ensuring that each text (or translation) of the Creed + can be compared with a sizeable corpus of literature of the same language and of the same period as each text (or translation). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 213 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 277.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_05_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_05_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4d6d3c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_05_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,457 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity defines text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; it also explores exploiting object fusion + techniques, based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools, in order to maximise the efficiency of the + Development team. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 232 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, + travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Extraction + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 233 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The goal of this activity is the definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + ●Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + ●exploiting multilingual resources + ●exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 21.016,80 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 179.340,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + + + + 234 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 5.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity ensures that Digital Maktaba goes into operation and is properly set up, and that, from a data management perspective, big + data management techniques and tools are properly applied to the database for storing the extracted data and metadata. Special focus is + given to the data interchange and long-term preservation aspects, in order to allow data interchange with catalogue data from other + libraries and make the managed data readable and usable also on a long-term basis. + Finally, a web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project Digital Maktaba + is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for publishing in the + RESILIENCE marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 318.827,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 235 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 22.317,94 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 5.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the following tasks: + ●T5.4.1 [M 24-26] Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + ●T5.4.2 [M 26-28] Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + ●T5.4.3 [M 28-30] Use case workshop + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + + 236 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 5.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing, + performing the following tasks: + ●T5.3.1 [M 14-18] design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques + for interfacing / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + ○Long term preservation practices + ○Big data management / distributed + ●T5.3.2 [M16-20] definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + + + 237 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + ●T5.3.4 [M16-24] definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and + interpretable) ML algorithms: + ○to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + ○to automate publication type recognition + ○to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + ●T5.3.5 [M 25-26] Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in A5.1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + ITSERR development activity is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 829.775,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 58.084,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 238 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Validation + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, both on samples of + materials found in A5.1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 239 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 5.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital Maktaba, and setting + the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + ●T5.1.1 [M 1-6] Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the + historical-critical, linguistic perspective + ●T5.1.2 [M 1-6] Preliminary recognition of: + ○OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + ○text mining techniques + ○long term preservation of digital documents techniques + ○big data management tools/techniques + ○(interpretable) machine learning techniques + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + + + + 240 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 171.810,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.026,69 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Database Architecture + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 241 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity is tasked with the definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the extracted catalogue data + and metadata. The database, according to the specifications designed in this activity, is to be successively implemented in A5.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 151.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_06_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_06_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1127a1e --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_06_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,482 @@ + +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_07_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_07_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..df1ecd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_07_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,451 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_08_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_08_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd5a9fd --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_08_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,407 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_09_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_09_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a15725d --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_09_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_10_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_10_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b30da49 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_10_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@ + +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_11_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_11_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c4c88e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_11_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_12_tasks.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_12_tasks.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..27d39e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_12_tasks.txt @@ -0,0 +1,186 @@ + + 49 Activity short name + 12.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 6 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 178 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Management Plan (DMP) is intended to be a living document in which information can be made available on a finer level of + granularity through updates as the implementation of the project progresses and when significant changes occur. + Additionally, no single strategy can cover the integration and interoperation of the diverse datasets to be included in ITSERR: for these + reasons, the Data Management Plan is accurately designed to ensure that data that enters the ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, + accessible and reusable). + The following activities will be performed: + ●Analysis of RESILIENCE Data Management Plan + ●Collecting data services requirements on data produced and collected by the ITA WPs + ●Virtual information sessions on proper data handling with RESILIENCE Team, incl. GDPR, Open Science, FAIR principles + ●Eventual updates to RESILIENCE Data management plan + ●Presentation of RESILIENCE DMP and Q&A to all WP leaders (incl. FAIR, Open Science principles, tools, etc.) + ●Reviews and revision of RESILIENCE DMP proposed to RESILIENCE Team + ●Data Management Services (DMS) + ●Data Services Brainstorming + ●Preparation Workshops + ●ITSERR Data Management Services Analysis + ●Set-up of the ITSERR data handling and organisation + ●Set-up long term archiving and publication of core Resilience data according to Open Science and FAIR principles for ITSERR. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 54.482,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 179 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.813,77 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Reference Data Services + 49 Activity short name + 12.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + ITSERR has the objective to re-use and set-up a Reference Data Model by developing a baseline operational data model and maintain + it as a long term Reference Data Model for data managed on the RESILIENCE ecosystem. + Our Reference Data Model is build as such: + ●Collecting (Meta)Data requirements from all stakeholders + ●Building out the infrastructure to support a reference data model + ●Creation of a process for updating the model (including data governance approval) + ●Use the model content to organise and structure data hosted on RESILIENCE + ●Keep refining the model while supporting new projects on the platform. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 106.646,40 € + + + + + 180 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.465,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Services Execution + 49 Activity short name + 12.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Services Execution is the implementation of a series of artefacts(software, guidelines, training, etc) helping each work package + to implement adequately their Data Management LifeCycle (DMLC). This activity will perform the following tasks: + ●Selection and prioritisation of services to be implemented for ITSERR: based on the WP data management requirements, we’ll identify + a set of tools to be created and/or set-up to implement the DMLC + ●Architecture and design of the software components implementing the data management services to be hosted within RESILIENCE + ●Development and testing of the services + + + 181 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Development and testing of the services + ●Operation: the Data Centre Services team ensures that all artefacts produced, transformed and managed by the tools are available + 24/7, that the back-up of data is performed and that the project capacity is sufficiently sized (ie: memory, space, processing). + ●Documentation writing for RESILIENCE: this documentation becomes part of the RESILIENCE knowledge management + repository + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 151.068,60 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.574,80 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_BD.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_BD.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cd1d242 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_BD.txt @@ -0,0 +1,19970 @@ + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 49.846,48 49.846,48 + + 2 BM2 99.692,95 149.539,43 + + 3 BM3 244.276,89 393.816,32 + + 4 BM4 252.998,06 646.814,38 + + 5 BM5 252.998,06 899.812,44 + + 6 BM6 252.998,06 1.152.810,50 + + 7 BM7 252.998,06 1.405.808,56 + + 8 BM8 252.998,06 1.658.806,62 + + 9 BM9 252.998,06 1.911.804,68 + + 10 BM10 252.998,06 2.164.802,74 + + 13 BM13 252.998,06 2.417.800,80 + + 15 BM15 252.998,06 2.670.798,86 + + 17 BM17 252.998,06 2.923.796,92 + + 19 BM19 223.131,60 3.146.928,52 + + 21 BM21 175.379,15 3.322.307,67 + + + 36 WP title + T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies + 37 WP number + 3 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 93 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 8 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + T-ReS is a toolkit of software specifically designed and optimised for the domain of Religious Studies, aimed at empowering researchers + with up-to-date, user-friendly and sustainable tools that take full advantage of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure ecosystem. + The toolkit includes CRITERION, a software for creating critical editions of primary sources, and GNORM, a software that allows a + more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of printed religious normative sources + through data mining techniques and providing a 3D visualisation of the analysed sources. + + Scope and goals + The toolkit for Religious Studies collects a group of software prototype tools (incl. CRITERION and GNORM) that aim at + improving the research experience of scholars, developing a technology that is applicable also to other domains, thanks to the + interdisciplinarity offered by Religious Studies, a cross-fertile domain of knowledge that links philology, theology, history, law, art-history, + linguistics, semantics, philosophy, sociology, and which collaborates with hard-science such as chemistry in the study of primary sources (eg. + analysis of inks in the manuscripts). T-ReS includes two major use cases (CRITERION and GNORM, outlined below), grouped in a + single WP in order to maximise synergy and with the aim of providing a library of reusable software components. Such a library allows to + simplify and speed up the development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi-language, multi-alphabet, multi- + onthologies solutions for the in-depth processing of voluminous corpora; additionally, the library can be applied to and draw from the other + WPs of the project. The prototype tools envisaged specifically for the T-ReS WP are: + 1. The development of CRITERION, an open-source, multi-platform, multi-language and multi-alphabet software for creating critical + editions of primary sources. It is meant primarily for religious texts, where textual criticism and editions in diverse (and often uncommon + or ancient) languages are crucial, not only for the establishment of a text and understanding its context, but also for the impact that + religious texts had and have on the life of millions of people. The current digital resources show various shortages: + - The little support for uncommon and ancient languages in software producing critical editions or, when support exists, lack of tools for + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + + + + 94 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + - Lack of room for cooperation, while (especially in Religious Studies) cross-language cooperation and re-use of research data are + quintessential to the field, and therefore crucial. + - The available software is either non-open source, or discontinued. + - The available editors for critical editions provide poor support material even in the case of non-open source editors (such as CTE). + To overcome these challenges, CRITERION is able to produce printed and/or digital editions, in an easily readable and readily easily + interoperable format, with PDF and TEI-based encoding respectively: TEI standards can be applied for the management of next- + generation standoff properties. CRITERION, being Open Source and part of an infrastructural ecosystem, is released to a user + community that can support and enhance its elements (i.e. plug-ins) through a dedicated website and users’ forum (cfr. Stack Exchange). + To achieve its purpose, CRITERION must also be able to incorporate an advanced plug-in model allowing the automatic collation of + witnesses and the production (and visualisation) of sets of variants, of manuscript groups and of relationships between manuscripts in the + form of potential stemmata, supplanting tools such as ChrysoCollate. Most importantly, CRITERION allows also to preserve and re- + use the research data that text editors collect during their work. The research data is preserved in a structured dataset that ensures + Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR principles), thus pushing forward philological research. + + 2. GNORM is a software allowing a more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of + printed religious normative sources through data mining techniques based on the word2vec model and applying standoff properties to large + corpora. GNORM is capable of visualising the results of its analysis in 3D, researchers to examine the evolution of religious normative + texts both in their textual and paratextual elements. Given that religious normative texts have their own specific internal consistency, + which is shared by different corpora, ITSERR is able to provide the perfect environment for developing a domain-oriented prototype like + GNORM. Once again, the digital shortages in the currently available tools become GNORM’s challenges: + a) While a 2D visualisation is already possible, it does not allow an easy, user-friendly interface able to show the chronological + stratification of a primary source, both in its textual and paratextual elements. + b) Optimization of already existing 3D visualisation technology for Religious Studies, where the implications of the texts under scrutiny + go well beyond their philological or literary aspects and involve significant historical, theological and juridical aspects. + With GNORM, the glosses are digitally categorised and ordered through metadata assignment obtained through machine learning, and + the properties according to which they are categorised (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.) correspond to the + axes that can be viewed in 3D visualisation (for a maximum of 3 axes). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP: + A3.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of text editors capable of producing critical editions (for CRITERION); + analysis and evaluation of source material, and analysis of suitable software tools (for GNORM); analysis of the features required by a + shared library for ITSERR software tools; formulation of scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + + A3.2: Scientific preparation, divided in: + A3.2.1: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for CRITERION. + A3.2.2: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for GNORM. + A3.2.3: evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION. + A3.2.4: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici. + A3.2.5: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Talmud Bavli. + + A3.3: Development: + For CRITERION: Optimisation/development of an editor for applying to text TEI-based standoff properties, that are stored in and + retrieved from a graph database, implementation of import/export functions for the graph database used by the editor, and integration of + an automatic collation software (e.g. CollateX or Chrysocollate) with the editor, as a plugin. + For GNORM: Optimisation of data mining algorithm for applying word embedding to the texts in the corpora; + development/optimisation of a software for automatic application of properties to the corpus; development of a 3D visualisation software + for the assigned properties. + For T-ReS in general: development of a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR and also RESILIENCE research services. + A3.4: Test: Testing of CRITERION and GNORM with the scientific community; testing of the shared library across software + developed in other WPs. + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + + + + 95 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + the CRITERION user community. Running GNORM on the collected corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, and + publication of CRITERION and GNORM for the RESILIENCE marketplace. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + 1. The first output of T-ReS is CRITERION, a software that allows users to produce both digital and/or printed + critical editions, with full representation of a multi-level critical apparatus (for variant readings, sources, intertextual + references etc). In substance, the outcome of CRITERION is a software that is able to: + 1)Annotate a text with TEI standards with standoff properties. + 2)Order the annotated properties in a graph database, and retrieve them for visualisation according to the users’ + input. + 3)Produce an automated collation of witnesses, if required by the user. + 4)Import databases of textual properties from third-party collation software (if the data model is compatible). + 5)Import databases of textual properties created by other users of CRITERION. + 6)Visualise relationships between textual properties (e.g. manuscript groups, variant readings) by retrieving + information from its graph database. + 7)Export results in XML or PDF for digital and printed editions respectively. + 8)Possibility to support the export of result with a future standard model for TEI, standoff annotation. + 2. GNORM will develop a 3D visualisation software that makes possible to visualise the chronological stratification + of the textual and paratextual elements of a source. The axes of the 3D visualisation can be chosen by the users + from an array of properties (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.). + The test case will be based on specific corpora: the Corpus Iuris Canonici and the Talmud Bavli. + 3. T-ReS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + Motivation + 1)CRITERION is one of the greatest desiderata of those fields of study whose specialisms are based upon, or at + least strongly characterised by, the production and analysis of critical texts of primary sources. Although this niche + of the market is not devoid of relevant tools, none of the latter simultaneously cover all the requirements set by + CRITERION: for instance, some completely lack the multi-layered approach (like CTE); some are not WYSIWYG + (like most LaTeX-based software); most are not optimised for non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets; some are not + optimised for non-Windows users (again, like CTE); some are not familiar with markup languages (e.g. traditional + word editors, like MS Word, LibreOffice etc.), and some are designed only for online editions). The field of + Religious Studies, where textual criticism is not only relevant per se, but is also connected with historical, theological + and juridical issues, and where connected texts are often extant in different languages and alphabets, is one of the + very few environments where a powerful prototype like CRITERION can be developed. + 2)GNORM. There is the need of a 3D Edition Visualization Technology, which will show the source in different + chronological layers, allowing the final user to visualise the evolution of hermeneutics and the stratification of the + source. Furthermore, words can become tags for all the other sources in which that specific word occurs, displaying + the various layers not only in chronological order but also according to linguistic occurrences and semantic + similarities. Such a functionality allows the data mining of large corpora: this will help scholarship in analysing + different manuscripts and early printings at the same time, with the possibility to show the (hidden) cross-references + and the mutual influences. Since religious normative texts maintain a specific internal consistency, which is shared + by different corpora within the field of Religious Studies, scholars of this domain are the most motivated to develop + a prototype like GNORM, which is bound to positively affect other domains. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + + + 96 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D3.1.1 Whitepaper on Toolkit Libraries + This whitepaper explains the reasoning and possible exploitation of the libraries + adopted by T-ReS tool, and their cross-application (implemented or envisaged) for + BM6 6 tools developed in other IT. The whitepaper also serves as guidelines for adding + new material to the library, and describes its compatibility with other software + tools, especially within RESILIENCE. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D3.1.2 Whitepaper on CRITERION + This whitepaper describes CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor for producing + digital or print-ready critical editions of sources pertaining to the field of Religious + Studies. It explains the challenges given by the high complexity of the languages + and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and how CRITERION applies the TEI + data models for encoding texts, and produces output that can be exported in a + XML or PDF format, to ensure compatibility and long-term usability (for XML) + and ease of use (for PDF). It also illustrates how the editor makes the largest + possible use of standoff properties annotations, that allow to perform nested + BM15 15 and/or multiple tagging of text portions (unlike XML). In addition, the standoff + annotator engine is added to the T-ReS toolkit library (D3.1.1). + D3.1.3 Whitepaper on GNORM + This whitepaper describes GNORM as a software for visualising the chronological + stratification of the textual and paratextual elements of a source presenting the + high complexity of the languages and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and + the related challenges. It details the corpus preparation guidelines and explains how + GNORM extracts the information from the source, annotates it as metadata, and + then visualises it for the user + + D3.1.4 Whitepaper on the results using GNORM on Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + BM17 17 to GNORM, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + + + 97 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + D3.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + CRITERION and GNORM is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in + the form of two training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE + infrastructure. + D3.3 Data publishing (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli Metadata) on + BM19 19 RESILIENCE + The database created by using GNORM on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud + Bavli corpora is published on RESILIENCE, powered by GNORM itself for + multi-layered and 3D visualisation. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly + community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and + exploring new features of normative religious texts; on the other hand, this + displays the potentialities of GNORM. + + D3.4 Prepare CRITERION and GNORM for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + The technical documentation of T-ReS library, and the technical documentation, + BM21 21 source code and binaries of CRITERION and GNORM are packaged as Open + Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM1 1 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 98 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + + + + 99 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM3 3 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + + + 100 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM4 4 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + + + + 101 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM5 5 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 102 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM7 7 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 103 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM8 8 ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 104 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM9 9 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + + + + 105 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + + + + 106 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM13 13 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 107 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM15 15 + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + + + + 108 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM17 17 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM19 19 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 109 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM21 21 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 110 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 49.846,48 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 99.692,95 + + + + + 111 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on toolkit libraries + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 244.276,89 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for CRITERION + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for GNORM + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + + + + 112 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in PRODUCTION environment; second release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in PRODUCTION environment; second release of GNORM in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 223.131,60 + + + + + 113 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 175.379,15 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: CRITERION, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.3 + + + + 114 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION, domain-specific testing of + prototype and scientific coordination and support of Analysis and Development teams; its goal is to oversee and direct the development of + CRITERION carried out in A3.2.1 and A3.3 in order to ensure that the prototype corresponds to the needs of the scientific + community. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 213.887,44 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.972,12 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 115 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/CRITERION + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in software research and prototyping for CRITERION. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 116 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Talmud Bavli, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the analysis and preparation of the Talmud Bavli corpus for GNORM; it prepares guidelines for corpus pre- + processing for GNORM, as far as the Talmud Bavli case-study is concerned; it subsequently performs the corpus building and pre- + processing for GNORM (Talmud Bavli), according to the specified guidelines; it also carries out domain-specific testing of the GNORM + prototype, with relation to the Talmud Bavli corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 117 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 3.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of developing the software required for T-ReS tools, carrying out the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design + task ensures that: + + + 118 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)CRITERION development: this task develops CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor prototype, in cooperation with the scientific + team in charge of A3.2.1. It also develops the plug-in system for CRITERION, and it produces a collation analysis plug-in. + 3)GNORM development: it develops the (meta)data extraction system for GNORM through algorithm optimisation and layout + analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of knowledge extraction + algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. It also produces the architecture of the database where + extracted properties are stored. + 4)GNORM visualisation: it develops a visualisation frontend for GNORM, to allow 3D visualisation and fruition according to users’ + needs and requirements. + 5)T-ReS, general: it develops a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, in order to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR. + All this is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.487.778,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 104.144,46 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 119 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 3.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test CRITERION and GNORM. + Although this may look as an almost final stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the + testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the + conditions of use, etc. + + Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of + CRITERION and GNORM, for the WYSIWYG editor in one case, and for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli) in the other. In addition, this activity tests the T-ReS shared library by coordinating with activities A3.3 and A3.2.1 + and with other WPs; finally, it collects feedback from users of CRITERION and GNORM prototypes, to assist in producing + documentation for the prototypes. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + + 120 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 3.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is properly run, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. + It also sets up GNORM and the databases for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli) for Continuous + Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release- + ready state. + The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. For CRITERION, it ensures that a dedicated community + forum is set up, while for T-ReS it deploys the shared library in coordination with other WPs. + Finally, it ensures that the prototypes of CRITERION and GNORM are released and published for the RESILIENCE + marketplace. + + + + 121 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 103.380,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.236,60 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 3.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 122 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary IT work for the development of T-ReS. The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic + understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. + In particular, the activity explores and evaluates text editors capable of producing critical editions for CRITERION, and evaluates + source material and suitable software tools for GNORM; it also analyses features required by a shared library for ITSERR software + tools and, elaborates prototypes for the tools; finally, it produces scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 172.500,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 136.620,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.490,67 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + + + + 123 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in algorithmic research for GNORM. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + + + + 124 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Corpus Iuris Canonici, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 8 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to: + 1) the analysis and preparation of guidelines for corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici; + 2)application of guidelines and corpus building for GNORM (Corpus iuris canonici); + 3)domain-specific supervision on the testing of the prototype with relation to the Corpus Iuris Canonici case-study. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 125 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 126 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 2.114,70 2.114,70 + + 2 BM2 113.926,37 116.041,07 + + 3 BM3 130.174,88 246.215,95 + + 4 BM4 130.174,88 376.390,83 + + 5 BM5 130.174,88 506.565,71 + + 6 BM6 130.174,88 636.740,59 + + 7 BM7 130.174,88 766.915,47 + + 8 BM8 130.174,88 897.090,35 + + 9 BM9 130.174,88 1.027.265,23 + + 10 BM10 130.174,84 1.157.440,07 + + 13 BM13 130.174,88 1.287.614,95 + + 15 BM15 130.174,88 1.417.789,83 + + 17 BM17 130.174,88 1.547.964,71 + + 19 BM19 130.174,88 1.678.139,59 + + 21 BM21 119.935,92 1.798.075,51 + + + 36 WP title + Data Centre Services + 37 WP number + 2 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 127 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + To fully serve the scientific community of Religious Studies, the most basic requirement of a RI is to provide best of breed computing + resources supported by secure and robust Data Centre services. In terms of computing resources and services, the scope of ITSERR is to + offer cost savings, scalability, high performance, economies of scale, and more. In cooperation with the RESILIENCE Data Centres + partners, CINECA and the University of Muenster, this WP will deliver IT resources and services including storage, processing power, + databases, networking, analytics and software applications over the internet. By providing these resources, ITSERR allows Italian + Religious Studies researchers to access the computational assets they need, when they need them, without needing to purchase and maintain + a physical, on-premise IT infrastructure. This provides flexible resources, faster innovation, and economies of scale. + + Like RESILIENCE, to provide Data Centre Services (DCS) ITSERR adopts the IT Infrastructure library (ITIL) 2011 approach. + ITSERR’s Operations Officer (OL) is the Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) for all DCS related matters and is supported in these + activities by the DCS operations team members. The DCS operations team will be responsible for applying ITIL-based processes and + principles when managing its activities throughout the duration of the project and during 10 years after its end. The DCS team will + interact with all WPs to organise the services and provide monthly DCS reports to the Team Leaders and the Infrastructure Manager. In + terms of services, the DCS team will participate at least to the following processes: Release and deployment management; Configuration + management; Service level management; Continuous service improvement; Availability management; Capacity management; IT service + continuity management and Access management. + + Scope and goal + The operational and security excellence of the RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure is ensured by the Data Centre (DC) Services + Operation Team and underwritten by the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE. This policy defines security and + management controls to be applied in the provision of DC services by ITSERR teams for all research projects hosted on the resilience- + ri.eu platform. This WP addresses DC security and managements aspects such as: + - Operations of development, testing and operational IT environments + - Follow-up software/hardware vulnerabilities from mainstream vulnerability databases + - Network management procedures + - Production and project services: authentication and authorisation, Access and Authentication Infrastructure (AAI) integration, asset + management, installation and configuration, data handling, vulnerability management, availability monitoring, backup configuration, + change management, user registration, etc. + - Logging and monitoring of systems’ capacity and availability, + - Laptop recommended configuration, anti-virus policy, administrator activities + - Incident/Problem Management procedure also for security events + - Backup management + - Business Continuity management: maintenance of resources for disaster recovery at any delivery location + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE supply of Data Centre Services + + Activities envisaged + A2.1 DC Services Analysis: During the first 2 months of the project, the DC Operations Team will gather the requirements in terms + of: + + + 128 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + of: + - applications hosting requirements, sizing, data and processing capacity, etc. + - project and quality management tools necessary for the follow-up of the project; + - security requirements to operate safely all ITSERR systems and data. + For all requirements gathered, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of + RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. Then DCS solutions are discussed with the various team + members and the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + + A2.2 DC Services Implementation: the DCS team orders the software licences necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services + Then the team proceeds with the installation of the solutions on the RESILIENCE Data Centre partner and starts testing the overall + service levels of the infrastructure. Here also, the security measures to be applied at infrastructural levels are set-up and put in operation. + + A2.3 DC Services Support: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP teams to + ensure a shared knowledge and the respect of the management and security services and principles. They will also assist the WP teams + during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and production). The DCS Team will be in close contact with the + RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and DCS services are used by WP1, WP3 to WP10 and WP12 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + First for all WP teams of this project, and then for the broader community of Italian DH researchers, the provision + of professional IT computing services and expertise including: + ●Authentication and Access Infrastructure services: Today users often need five to ten accounts or digital identities + in their digital research life. RESILIENCE AAI replaces different sign-in techniques for specific tools in the + RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure if there is a restriction necessary. Where agreed by existing institutions, + RESILIENCE AAI will make use of existing academic or research identities by interfacing existing systems. + ●Storage: The storage service provides initially a few PB of storage to the infrastructure projects as a technical core + service to all WPs. An easy and secure access and rights management gets implemented on top of the Resilience + AAI. + ●Hosting: The service implements Virtual Machines (VMs) per WP project so that they can move from one hosting + environment to another if a researcher wants to. This service includes for the ITSERR projects: + ○core VMs installation of Linux based stack such as LAMP. + ○The project [name] hosting is made available under [name].resilience-ri.eu. + ○the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, + change management, staff time management, etc. (See in figure WP2.1 a simplified version of the tools and their + relations within our PM and development hosting environment). + ○The WPs development, test and production environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle + management, documentation lifecycle management, etc. + ○The operation management environment including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services + availability, logging, services performance, etc. + ●Computing capacity: The computing service gives easy access to different kinds of computational resources like + shared memory systems and hadoop/spark clusters of different sizing based on the WP requirements (i.e. Machine + Learning requirements). + ●Security: Resilience as an infrastructure will be designed as a security framework in which security services are + already included such as anti-spam filters, load-balancers, request filtering (e.g. denial-of-service attacks). Due to this + approach, ITSERR reduces the efforts to be invested by each hosted research project to guarantee the security of its + project. + ●Shared knowledge: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + + + + 129 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE Data Centre Services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3). + Motivation + ITSERR intends to host a huge variety of information systems with a high impact on the Religious Studies Research + ecosystems including both EU and non-EU citizens, agencies, governments, etc. We note that for the information + systems in the scope of ITSERR, the availability, capacity and security of research data and research services is + paramount. Considering this context, we intend to design a security and service strategy embedded in Data Centre + Service delivery ensuring adherence to best of breed rules, policies and guidelines on all levels: ITSERR contract, + Work Packages, future research projects, individual researchers and citizens. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D2.1 Services Level Requirements: The Operations Leader (OL) will lead the + collection of the project services requirements from all management team + members. This information, a mandatory ITIL deliverable will be presented as + Service Level Requirements (SLR) and is an important deliverable that must be + clearly defined, documented, signed off, and understood by all project stakeholders + before the service could be delivered. Its content will cover at least the following + topics: + ●General requirements + ●Services operations requirements (e;g. deployment, infrastructure change + requests, account provisioning, etc.) + ●Requirements on the delivery of services operations (e. g. Service Level to be + provided) + ●Languages supported (i.e. for the support service desk) + ●Normal services hours (i.e. where the ITSERR team can work but also when + researchers using the RI can call the support services) + ●RI support outside of Normal services hours (i.e. On-call service, etc.) + ●Training requirements (i.e. for the ITSERR team but also for the researchers, + future users of the RI) + BM1 1 ●Security requirements + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE(M4, + M12, M24): The DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services + BM2 2 operations. They will be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + + + + 130 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + BM3 3 ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM4 4 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + + + 131 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + BM5 5 information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + BM6 6 The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + + + + 132 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM7 7 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + + + 133 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM8 8 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM9 9 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 134 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + BM10 10 ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM13 13 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + + + + 135 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + BM15 15 ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + BM17 17 ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + + + + 136 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM19 19 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + BM21 21 among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + + + + 137 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + BM1 1 ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + + + + 138 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + BM2 2 DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + + + + 139 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + BM3 3 to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + + + + 140 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + BM4 4 Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + + + + 141 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + BM5 5 obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + + + + 142 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + ll the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + BM6 6 depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + + + + 143 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + BM7 7 below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + + + + 144 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + BM8 8 copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + + + + 145 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + BM9 9 the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + + + + 146 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + BM10 10 automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + + + + 147 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + BM13 13 Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + + + + 148 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + + + + 149 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM17 17 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + + + + 150 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM19 19 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 151 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + BM21 21 All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + + + + 152 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + BM21 21 ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + + 153 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 2.114,70 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 113.926,37 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + + + 154 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 130.174,84 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + + + + 155 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 119.935,92 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 156 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + There are various investigation techniques for arriving at clearer requirements. Considering that users are often unsure about the + requirements, the support of a technical staff member is sometimes necessary. During the first months of the project, the DC Operations + Team will gather the requirements avoiding the eventual problems that can occur in collecting requirements: + ●Lack of relevance to the objectives of the service + ●Lack of clarity or ambiguity in the wording + ●Duplication between requirements + + At the end, the Service Level Requirements (See D2.1) will cover at least the following aspects: + ●ITSERR DCS plans and strategy + ●Vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the ITSERR as a Whole, and of the various WPs + ●Legislative requirements + ●Governance requirements + ●Budgeting and accounting requirements + ●Balanced scorecard + ●Service level requirements and targets + ●Service portfolio and service catalogue + ●Service review meetings + ●Customer satisfaction surveys + ●Continuous Services Improvement (CSI) initiatives already logged in the CSI register + ●Service models + + + 157 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Service models + ●Service Design Package + ●Benchmark and baseline data + ●Risk assessments and risk mitigation plans + + The Services Level Requirements document will be submitted for approval to the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders and will + be signed off before its analysis. + From the SLR accepted, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (See Deliverable + 2.2) of RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. To obtain the best services support, the ITSERR + DCS team will maintain regular contacts with the RESILIENCE DCS team during all phases of the project. + Then the DCS team starts proposing solutions in terms of software and services. These are discussed with the various team members and + the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 55.338,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.873,66 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + + + + + 158 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + DC Services Support + 49 Activity short name + 2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS team prepares documentation and training material for the WP teams to ensure a shared knowledge of the management and + security services and principles to be respected. + They will also assist the WP teams during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and set in production). + The DCS Team will be in close contact with the RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 189.819,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + + 159 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 13.287,33 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Implementation + 49 Activity short name + 2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 40 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS ITSERR team synchronises periodically with the RESILIENCE team to verify the status of the DC services and software + available on resilience-ri.eu. + From this information, the software licence necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services are ordered. + Then the DCS team proceeds with the installation of the solutions (See an example in the annexed figure WP2.1) and starts testing + their operationality. The team proceeds with the installation of the first mandatory environments including: + ●the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, change management, staff + time management, etc. + ●The WPs development environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle management, documentation lifecycle + management, etc. + ●The operation management including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services availability, logging, services performance, + etc. + + When the WPs teams will start deploying their software, a key mission of the DCS Team is to maintain operational and up-to-date the + software stack required by each WP. Among this stack is the RESILIENCE Toolkit composed of new/existing, shared and re-usable + components/services. As explained in WP3, and also in WP4 to WP10, the ITSERR Architecture and Design team will design all + WPs software solutions and will make sure that each time it is possible, an identical functionality will only be developed once and + eventually re-use existing code or software services already deployed in RESILIENCE or other RIs. During the pre-analysis of the WP + scope, the ITSERR team already identified some components that will be potentially re-used as presented in the annexed figure WP2.4. + 54 Activity budget + + + + + 160 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.435.287,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 100.470,12 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 161 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 19.224,82 19.224,82 + + 2 BM2 38.449,65 57.674,47 + + 3 BM3 38.449,65 96.124,12 + + 4 BM4 28.733,62 124.857,74 + + 5 BM5 19.017,59 143.875,33 + + 6 BM6 19.017,59 162.892,92 + + 7 BM7 19.017,59 181.910,51 + + 8 BM8 19.017,59 200.928,10 + + 9 BM9 19.017,59 219.945,69 + + 10 BM10 19.017,58 238.963,27 + + 13 BM13 19.017,59 257.980,86 + + 15 BM15 19.017,59 276.998,45 + + 17 BM17 19.017,59 296.016,04 + + 19 BM19 19.017,59 315.033,63 + + 21 BM21 19.017,59 334.051,22 + + + 36 WP title + Data Management Services + 37 WP number + 12 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 162 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP12 works toward the provision to the Research Community of Data Management Services and Reference Data Model services, while + working in full compliance with the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services. + + Scope + As a research infrastructure, ITSERR aims at the spreading of Open Science as a core part of its mission. Our mission is globally to + spread knowledge within an open, FAIR and interoperable ecosystem that is digital AND physical, while respecting environmental goals + (i.e. by favouring activities in person, by choosing zero-impact service providers for digital services, etc). Of course RI users are the only + ones accountable for the data they produce, but recourse to open standards, both in publications and other outputs (data, software etc.) will + be strongly encouraged by ITSERR wherever applicable. In addition, the implementation of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, + Reusable) compliant practices will be mandatory for all research data stored by ITSERR users/researchers. ITSERR therefore intends + to provide to the Research Community Data Management Services to: + - provide advice, guidelines, training and consultancy on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability + - encourage all its users to pursue Open Science practices by favouring i.e. open licences + - release all its publications (intended as documents produced by the consortium for the scope of the RI) in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposit them in a trusted repository + - publish all software engineered by ITSERR as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license types, and deposit + them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab) + - help applicants generating/collecting data and/or other research outputs (except for publications) by asking them to provide a maximum + half page on how the data/research outputs will be managed in line with the FAIR principles. The ITSERR team will then guide them + to the best possible implementation of the FAIR principles for their data. + + ITSERR, as a research infrastructure, does not primarily generate research data or research outputs in itself. Instead, it allows the + collection, the transformation of, and the distribution of data and metadata about research inputs/outputs. As a collector and distributor + of diverse datasets, ITSERR will interface a diversity of users: not only researchers, students or professors that are touched by the domain + of Religious Studies, but also different actors, such as the world of education, religious leaders and representatives, local or even national + political institutions, the press, and any citizen interested in developing an understanding of religions. To tackle this diversity of data, their + usage and the heterogeneity of potential users, ITSERR will deliver Reference Data Model services aiming at: + - Harmonising datasets of different provenance and with different target audiences by providing a RESILIENCE Reference Data + Model maintenance, being supported by data models and standards highly supported by the research community such as schema.org + - Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially thanks to the harmonisation + mentioned above + - Adopting for all WPs, the 4 layers EOSC interoperability framework: technical, semantic, organisational and legal + - In situations where different data licenses collide, ITSERR relies also on legal advice to tackle such issues for its users + - For research data including information about persons (e.g. from survey results, or user activities) that cannot be anonymized, ITSERR + will make sure that it is not made openly available and will be protected in accordance with GDPR + - Delivering guidance and training to researchers on data harmonisation and interoperability + - Improving the support to researchers by continuously collecting their feedback. + + + + 163 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + For its own scope, ITSERR can collect research data (e.g. in the form of surveys, services usage logs, etc.), and output can be generated in + the form, for instance, of software and/or data workflows for trainings or other activities. To this end, the ITSERR teams ensure: + - That data collected is treated according to the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" + - The findability and accessibility of all data and documents with a public status related to the design of the RI, using trusted repositories + - The adoption of Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license + In the case of data workflows, interoperable formats and standards are adopted. + + All ITSERR research and information technology outputs are deposited in git repositories and in trusted repositories (such as Zenodo) + respectively. + + The WP12 strengthens the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services (See Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3 in Annex 1). + + Activities + A12.1 Data Management Plan (DMP) creation: the Data Management Plan is a prescriptive deliverable designed to ensure that all + data hosted on the ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, accessible and reusable) and interoperable in the sense of the + EOSC interoperability framework. All activities performed here are to ensure that the DMP is aligned with RESILIENCE and + ITSERR DMP data requirements. + + A12.2 Reference Data Services: ITSERR must warranty that religious studies researchers have access to the information that they need + for their work, that the quality of the information is maintained at an acceptable level, that data models are syntactically and semantically + interoperable and that legal aspects in the areas of privacy, security, and confidentiality are warranted. A dedicated team of data + specialists works to establish RESILIENCE data management strategy, an agreement on the supportive technologies, the description of + the information management processes and the adopted data standards, data models and policies. + + A12.3 Data Services Execution: This activity is the implementation of the Data Management Strategy published and agreed upon in + A10.2. including tasks such as: + - Identify data sources. + - Identify data stewardship and ownership + - Data matching + - Data profiling + - Update the Reference Data Model, if necessary + - Advises on data interoperability + - Test the data interoperability + - Recommendations to adapt the system(s) data producers and consumers for an improved interoperability + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + All WPs + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + Provision of professional Data Management services for the Italian Religious Studies researchers. By using the + ITSERR data hosting platform, the researchers can benefit the following services: + ●Advices, guidelines and trainings material on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability, etc.; + ●Find and submit publications from the overall RESILIENCE research ecosystem in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposited in a trusted repository for long term persistence; + ●Find specialised data management software for Religious Studies as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software + Foundation license types, and deposited them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab); + ●Consultancy and expertise provision on research data management; + ●Guidance on harmonising research datasets and making them interoperable; + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + + + + 164 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + thanks to the harmonisation mentioned above; + ●Involving, where possible, citizens themselves in the production of knowledge (e.g. through surveys, interactive + seminars or educational activities, etc.). + The WP strengthens the RESILIENCE reference architecture services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM2 2 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM3 3 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM4 4 - + + + + + 165 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM5 5 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM6 6 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM7 7 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + BM8 8 ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + + + + 166 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM13 13 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + BM15 15 ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + + + + 167 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + BM21 21 data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + BM1 1 Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + + + + 168 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM1 1 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM2 2 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + BM3 3 the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 169 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM4 4 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM5 5 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + + + + 170 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM6 6 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + BM7 7 ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + + + + 171 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM8 8 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM9 9 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + BM10 10 data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + + + + 172 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM13 13 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + BM15 15 gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + + + + 173 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM17 17 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM19 19 ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + + + + 174 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM21 21 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 19.224,82 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + + + + 175 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 28.733,62 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + + + + 176 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 19.017,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + + + + 177 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Final version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Management Plan + 49 Activity short name + 12.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 6 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 178 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Management Plan (DMP) is intended to be a living document in which information can be made available on a finer level of + granularity through updates as the implementation of the project progresses and when significant changes occur. + Additionally, no single strategy can cover the integration and interoperation of the diverse datasets to be included in ITSERR: for these + reasons, the Data Management Plan is accurately designed to ensure that data that enters the ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, + accessible and reusable). + The following activities will be performed: + ●Analysis of RESILIENCE Data Management Plan + ●Collecting data services requirements on data produced and collected by the ITA WPs + ●Virtual information sessions on proper data handling with RESILIENCE Team, incl. GDPR, Open Science, FAIR principles + ●Eventual updates to RESILIENCE Data management plan + ●Presentation of RESILIENCE DMP and Q&A to all WP leaders (incl. FAIR, Open Science principles, tools, etc.) + ●Reviews and revision of RESILIENCE DMP proposed to RESILIENCE Team + ●Data Management Services (DMS) + ●Data Services Brainstorming + ●Preparation Workshops + ●ITSERR Data Management Services Analysis + ●Set-up of the ITSERR data handling and organisation + ●Set-up long term archiving and publication of core Resilience data according to Open Science and FAIR principles for ITSERR. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 54.482,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 179 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.813,77 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Reference Data Services + 49 Activity short name + 12.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + ITSERR has the objective to re-use and set-up a Reference Data Model by developing a baseline operational data model and maintain + it as a long term Reference Data Model for data managed on the RESILIENCE ecosystem. + Our Reference Data Model is build as such: + ●Collecting (Meta)Data requirements from all stakeholders + ●Building out the infrastructure to support a reference data model + ●Creation of a process for updating the model (including data governance approval) + ●Use the model content to organise and structure data hosted on RESILIENCE + ●Keep refining the model while supporting new projects on the platform. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 106.646,40 € + + + + + 180 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.465,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Services Execution + 49 Activity short name + 12.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Services Execution is the implementation of a series of artefacts(software, guidelines, training, etc) helping each work package + to implement adequately their Data Management LifeCycle (DMLC). This activity will perform the following tasks: + ●Selection and prioritisation of services to be implemented for ITSERR: based on the WP data management requirements, we’ll identify + a set of tools to be created and/or set-up to implement the DMLC + ●Architecture and design of the software components implementing the data management services to be hosted within RESILIENCE + ●Development and testing of the services + + + 181 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Development and testing of the services + ●Operation: the Data Centre Services team ensures that all artefacts produced, transformed and managed by the tools are available + 24/7, that the back-up of data is performed and that the project capacity is sufficiently sized (ie: memory, space, processing). + ●Documentation writing for RESILIENCE: this documentation becomes part of the RESILIENCE knowledge management + repository + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 151.068,60 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.574,80 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 182 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 34.819,76 34.819,76 + + 2 BM2 69.639,51 104.459,27 + + 3 BM3 148.779,46 253.238,73 + + 4 BM4 153.140,02 406.378,75 + + 5 BM5 153.140,02 559.518,77 + + 6 BM6 153.140,02 712.658,79 + + 7 BM7 153.140,02 865.798,81 + + 8 BM8 153.140,02 1.018.938,83 + + 9 BM9 153.140,02 1.172.078,85 + + 10 BM10 183.006,46 1.355.085,31 + + 13 BM13 153.140,02 1.508.225,33 + + 15 BM15 153.140,02 1.661.365,35 + + 17 BM17 153.140,02 1.814.505,37 + + 19 BM19 153.140,02 1.967.645,39 + + 21 BM21 156.233,63 2.123.879,02 + + + 36 WP title + DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum + 37 WP number + 4 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 183 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 7 Dipartimento di Ingegneria CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + DaMSym is intended as a software prototype for applying text understanding techniques to the investigation of issues on texts with a high + density of semantic information, determined by particular characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. Adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities, DaMSym benefits from an ideal case-study presented by Religious Studies, namely the translations of the Nicene- + Constantinopolitan Creed, a text with a strong dogmatic claim. DaMSym is meant to improve (and, in a virtuous circle, take advantage + from) the capabilities of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure, by bringing together cultural, historical and theological factors to + produce a new type of semantic analysis tool, capable of producing novel, domain-related knowledge, providing scholars with new insights. + + Scope and goal + The recent developments in Artificial Intelligence ensuing from the so-called connectionist turn and the development of Deep Neural + Networks have enabled new approaches to text mining and computational text analysis and understanding. In particular, the new + techniques of vector semantics and word embeddings provide new affordances for the establishment of the contextual meaning of single + words or phrases in a text. As well, recently developed Deep Neural Networks based on the fully-attentive paradigm, like BERT and + GPT-x has enabled a wide range of textual understanding and generation applications, from text classification to entity extraction and + machine translation, even in presence of a limited training set (few-shot or zero-shot settings). + The traditional study of Biblical concordances found its first computer-generated production as early as in 1957 and several search and + study systems for the Bible have been implemented since. While research on the Bible (and other sacred texts) can be pursued by improving + the implementation of tools for textual analysis, there is a type of texts relevant to Religious Studies that requires different tools and + different types of analyses. This type of texts is exemplified by the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. The Creed, along with other credal + formulas, presents a series of specific features: + - It is a “vehicular” text: its purpose is to transmit a formula of faith, with all its wide-ranging implications. + - It has a dogmatic claim: it has characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + + + 184 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + spectrum than other written texts (e.g. involving the non-literate). For the same reason, it has been translated extensively (often even + multiple times) into various languages, from the 4th century AD down to present times. + - It is relatively short, but also coherent in and of itself as well as with all its religious implications (theological, liturgical, doctrinal etc.). + - It serves (and served) a catechetical purpose. + At the same time (and for the same reasons) it can be (and often is) adapted to the target culture to a much greater degree than the sacred + texts. This means that the translated text incorporates semantic values from the target culture, while transmitting other semantic elements + from the language (or culture) of origin. + Because of these features, the aim of this WP is to develop software and algorithms for applying text understanding techniques to the + investigation of semantic textual issues, with the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a case study, adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities. The reasons for the methodological shift from conventional probabilistic methods to a machine learning approach have + already been highlighted in recent research. While in conventional probabilistic methods the choice was for topic modelling applications, a + machine learning approach envisages the use of more advanced approaches for textual understanding, ranging from the word2vec model for + word embeddings to more powerful approaches like GPT-x and BERT. Through a vector semantics approach, it is possible to achieve a + form of “computational close reading” that allows disambiguation and the detection of diachronic lexical semantic change. On the other + hand, BERT is one of the state-of-the-art models for text understanding, and allows to understand and classify text by considering an + entire sentence or an entire document, while generative approaches like GPT-3 can perform more sophisticated tasks like machine + translation between several languages, question answering and summarization even in presence of limited training data, thanks to the few- + shot abilities it exhibits. + Overall, the recent connectionist turn in Artificial Intelligence enables the direct application of computational analysis to lexical textual + phenomena and significantly enhances the effectiveness of digital interpretive and editorial practises. The critical and historical investigation + of the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into several languages provides a fitting case study in this respect. + The specific meaning of a word or phrase in a text can be inferred from the contextual analysis of the specific corpus of the author’s + writings and of coeval relevant literature. This is particularly significant for the examination of the diachronic lexical change among the + successive translations of a text: in this case study, the translations of the Creed are compared with a corpus that is contemporary to the + translation itself, and is of course in the same language as the translation. This allows the comparison of different interpretations of one + and the same textual expression, across different languages and alphabets, providing essential information for the advancement of + Religious Studies but also for other connected domains (such as philological criticism). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A4.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of digital and non-digital texts of the Creed, in original ancient languages and + in translations; analysis and recognition of word embedding tools to be adapted in later stages; formulation of scientific, user and technical + requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + + A4.2.1: Scientific preparation/general: validation of technical and scientific requirements and scientific coordination/support for other + activities in the WP. + A4.2.2: Scientific preparation/case-study: corpus-building and corpus preparation for DaMSym. + A4.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation. + A4.2.4: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, Greek and Latin texts. + A4.2.5: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, translations. + + A4.3: Development: training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding, optimisation and fine tuning of word embedding tool(s), + development of an APIs (for storing extracted properties in a graph database, for automatic standoff annotation, for machine translation, + for text classification); implementation of functions for the standoff platform, to present researchers and other users with an accessible + software prototype. + + A4.4: Test: testing of DaMSym in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation) and in its pre-release form (as a + full software protype for analysis of the Creed). Testing of DaMSym among a sample of researchers, for user and scientific feedback. + + A4.5: Operation: DaMSym goes into production. Running DaMSym on the Creed corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + + + 185 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The result of the WP is a combined software that allows to analyse and annotate corpora to understand, classify and + evaluate contextual semantics of any given text, in different languages and with special attention to uncommon and + ancient languages. This is especially useful in analysing translations of texts where semantics play a crucial role, such + as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The WP produces a prototype capable of applying word embedding on + multiple languages, operating machine translation of words, sentences and texts inside the textual corpora, + classifying and understanding text, according to the specific needs highlighted by humanities experts, executing + standoff annotation and visualising properties in a graph database. DaMSym is used in the critical case study of the + Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but can be applied to test-cases with high conceptual normativity presented by all + Humanities. + The prototype strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated + to the enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Religious Studies are characterised by text presenting a peculiar conceptual normativity, and the existing corpora + analysis tools do not allow for a full, in-depth understanding of the relationships between the text and its corpus, + and smaller and bigger corpora. Texts like the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople need to be placed in their linguistic, + cultural, chronological and theological framework to be fully interpreted semantically. This type of investigation + must make use of a vast amount of data, of diverse nature and complexity. To fully exploit the existence of such + diverse and extensive data, suitable digital tools are needed. To produce such tools a synergy between different types + of expertise can only be developed within the ecosystem of RESILIENCE, which is a domain-specific Research + Infrastructure. + The resulting prototype for textual understanding and data mining, however, can be applied even beyond the case + study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: the software developed by the WP make it possible to assess the + value as well as the semantic and cultural context of each translation, taking into account multi-disciplinary factors + (here represented by historical, theological and even liturgical elements) that are otherwise missed in purely text- + related or language-related tools. From a more technical point of view, the use of state-of-the-art neural networks + for textual understanding, specifically re-trained for the use-case, and a graph database allows a visual representation + of the words in context while resulting in a better disambiguation of word meanings which is the main point of the + research. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + + + + 186 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D4.1.1 Whitepaper on DaMSym + This whitepaper describes the reasoning and possible exploitation of DaMSym, + intended as a software that performs several functions: + 1)word embedding extraction + 2)machine translation + BM13 13 3)text classification and document understanding + 4)standoff properties annotation + 5)properties visualisation. + Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes DaMSym in + its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in subsequent + phases. + + D4.1.2 Whitepaper on the results using DaMSym on Nicene-Constantinopolitan + Creed + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to DaMSym, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating DaMSym + on the Creed corpus. As such, this deliverable not only validates DaMSym’s + prototype, but also provides researchers with new material for their studies + + BM17 17 - + + D4.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + DaMSym, and also during the preparation of D4.1.1 and D4.1.2 is systematised + BM19 19 and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a training package to be integrated + with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The package includes and use-case samples + (drawn from D4.1.2), as well as templates. + + D4.3 Data publishing (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum metadata) on + RESILIENCE + The database resulting from the application of DaMSym to the Creed corpus is + published, powered by DaMSym for browsing, consultation and user-only + annotation, through RESILIENCE. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research + acquisitions and exploring the connections between religious texts and their + BM21 21 commentaries; on the other hand, this displays the potentialities of DaMSym, + setting a new standard for tools dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also + for other domains. + + D4.4 Prepare DaMSym for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of DaMSym are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + + + + 187 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM1 1 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM2 2 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 188 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM3 3 ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + + + + 189 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM4 4 ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + + + + 190 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM5 5 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 191 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + + + + 192 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM8 8 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + + + + 193 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM9 9 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM10 10 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 194 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM13 13 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + + + + 195 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM15 15 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + + + + 196 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM17 17 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM19 19 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 197 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + + + + 198 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 34.819,76 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 69.639,51 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 148.779,46 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + + + 199 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on DaMSym; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 200 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 183.006,46 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; second release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 156.233,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 201 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 202 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 7 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the Greek and Latin texts of the Creed, to prepare them for analysis through + DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.652,28 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations + + + + 203 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the texts of the Creed in the translations defined in A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, to prepare + them for analysis through DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + + + + 204 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation; in a second stage, it oversees + the development activity (A4.3) in its realisation/adaptation of software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation, + ensuring that it remains in line with the scientific principles formulated in A4.1. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 205 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/general + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise. + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities and it validates technical and + scientific requirements, with the assistance of domain-specific experts for IT and for Religious Studies and by coordinating with other WP + activities. + It checks that software development and corpus preparation are performed in accordance with the technical and domain-specific + requirements, and it assists in updating these requirements when needed. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 206 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 27.912,56 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.641,33 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 4.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + 207 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up DaMSym and the database on the Creed for + Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always + in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for DaMSym, based on the works of A4.1-A4.4. + 2)It provides that DaMSym goes into production and that the database for the Creed powered by DaMSym is published for + RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + It provides that DaMSym’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + + + + 208 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 4.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test DaMSym. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. + The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their + problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, who + provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of DaMSym, for research on the two case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, + updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products + offered to the researchers. + In particular, DaMSym is tested first in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation), in order to assess KPIs and + assist the Development activity (A4.3), then DaMSym is tested its pre-release form (as a full software tool for analysis of the Creed), for + collecting user and scientific feedback. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,04 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 209 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 4.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity aims at finalising all the work validated by the previous phases, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this task brings different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and lead to smarter, more + sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + + + + 210 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)Training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding on the target languages, collecting training data from freely-available sources and + from the digital texts collected in A4.2 + 3)Optimisation and fine-tuning of the most performant toolkit component for word embedding on original texts, and on the translations + (at least 5 languages in 3 different non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets). + 4)Development and training of text understanding and classification tools for the digital texts collected in A4.2, on the basis of an + assessment of existing neural network architectures (e.g. GPTx-like) + 5)Development of an API that turns word embedding vector clusters into properties stored in a graph database (such as Neo4J). + 6)Development of an API for automatically annotating the vector clusters contained in the database as standoff properties in texts of the + corpus. + 7)Development of a machine translation API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 8)Development of a text classification API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 9)Implementation of functions for the standoff properties platform, in synergy with the T-ReS library, to be performed on the whole set of + different language corpora, and finalisation of DaMSym as an accessible software prototype for researchers and other users. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 800.538,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 56.037,65 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 211 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 4.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary work for the development of DaMSym. + The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This + involves consulting researchers and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the corpus of interest related to + the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, through engaging with researchers to produce a recognition of the corpus, analysing the digital and + non digital texts to be included and expressing the research issues involved. + To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this activity, for the corpus on the Creed and for + DaMSym as a software. + In parallel, digital resources for the languages involved are analysed, and tools for the required text processing functions (word embedding + extraction, properties database organisation, standoff properties platform) are explored. + This results in a formulation of technical requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 212 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/case-study + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of collecting the corpus for the Creed and its translations, ensuring that each text (or translation) of the Creed + can be compared with a sizeable corpus of literature of the same language and of the same period as each text (or translation). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 213 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 277.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 214 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 35.919,24 35.919,24 + + 2 BM2 71.838,48 107.757,72 + + 3 BM3 142.316,00 250.073,72 + + 4 BM4 186.551,53 436.625,25 + + 5 BM5 186.551,53 623.176,78 + + 6 BM6 186.551,53 809.728,31 + + 7 BM7 186.551,53 996.279,84 + + 8 BM8 186.551,53 1.182.831,37 + + 9 BM9 186.551,53 1.369.382,90 + + 10 BM10 186.551,57 1.555.934,47 + + 13 BM13 186.551,53 1.742.486,00 + + 15 BM15 186.551,53 1.929.037,53 + + 17 BM17 186.551,53 2.115.589,06 + + 19 BM19 186.551,53 2.302.140,59 + + 21 BM21 206.264,77 2.508.405,36 + + + 36 WP title + Digital Maktaba + 37 WP number + 5 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 215 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + Digital Maktaba (in Arabic "maktaba", "library": the "place where books are located", henceforth DM) is conceived as a response to + the need to create multi-alphabet digital catalogues for the management of works in non-Latin alphabets and aims to become an + instrument exportable to other realities than that of the religious sciences where it was born. + DM is an important addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem because it is intended to offer a helpful and innovative service to + libraries specialised in religious studies that need to manage cultural heritage data in non-latin alphabets. For this reason some resources + of the FSCIRE Library in Palermo constitute a rather unique and exclusive case study which includes specialised knowledge, non-latin + alphabets (e.g. Arabic) and multilingual variation in a comprehensive digital corpus of documents. From this point DM accepts the + challenge posed by non-latin alphabets in matters of data extraction, big data management and the challenge of librarianship and + cataloguing at large. + + To date, for example, the Italian National Library Service does not provide for such a possibility yet and also imposes ineffective + transliteration systems in contrast to the adjustments being made in other countries and the standards set by the International Standard + Bibliographic Description. The choice of systems to be adopted is still subject to the influence of the ideological element and the cultural and + political dimension of the choice itself. + + The aim is to establish procedures for the extraction, management of libraries and archives and to develop virtuous models in the field of + cataloguing that can accommodate texts written in non-Latin alphabets, starting with the case of the Arabic alphabet. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A5.1 Analysis. This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital + Maktaba, and setting the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + T5.1.1 Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the historical-critical, + linguistic perspective + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + + + + 216 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + - OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + - text mining techniques + - long term preservation of digital documents techniques + - big data management tools/techniques + - (interpretable) machine learning techniques + + A5.2.1 Scientific preparation/OCR: Definition of text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; + exploiting object fusion techniques based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools + A5.2.2 Scientific preparation/Extraction: Definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + exploiting multilingual resources + exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition + A5.2.3 Scientific preparation/Database Architecture: Definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the + extracted catalogue data and metadata, to be successively implemented in A5.3. + A5.2.4 Scientific preparation/Validation: Supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, + both on samples of materials found in WP1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + + A5.3 Development: this activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and + Supervised Cataloguing, performing the following tasks: + T5.3.1 design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques for interfacing + / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + - Long term preservation practices + - Big data management / distributed + T5.3.2 definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + T5.3.3 design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + T5.3.4 definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and interpretable) ML + algorithms: + - to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + - to automate publication type recognition + - to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + T5.3.5 Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in WP1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + A5.4 Test : this activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the + following tasks: + T4.1 Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + T4.2 Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + T4.3 Use case workshop + + A5.5 Operations: A web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project + Digital Maktaba is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for + publishing in RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + outcome + The aim of the WP is to ultimately create a supervised intelligent cataloguing tool prototype. Advanced search + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + + + + 217 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + information required and make searches more efficient and effective w.r.t. typical cataloguing tools. Intelligent and + AI-based techniques will also have a prominent role: intelligent assistance features will be designed and implemented + in order to bring new levels of assistance to the cataloguing process. Data entering will be supported by suggestions + derived from user feedback and previously entered data; supervised machine learning models will enable automatic + publication type recognition and provide a systematisation and classification of data according to the topographic + classification of the FSCIRE library. The design of incremental ML algorithms will ensure that the prototype can + "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use. + + DM strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + The information retrieval and text extraction fields on Arabic scripts have made huge strides in the last decades, but + there have not been many projects aimed at exploiting them for the curation of new and innovative digital libraries. + In 2009 the Alexandria library announced the creation of the Arabic Digital Library as part of the DAR project + (Digital Assets Repository), employing a sophisticated OCR system for the Arabic language. Other projects are + Arabic Collections Online (ACO), a publicly available digital library of public domain Arabic language content, and + the British Library projects, focused toward the digitization of handwritten Arabic and Persian manuscripts. All + these projects target only a part of the languages considered in DigitalMaktaba and aim at the pure digitization of a + (smaller) library of books, often with consistent manual work. + Focusing on text and metadata extraction tools available in state of the art, most of existing OCR / text acquisition + systems do not offer consistent and high quality results on all the languages we plan to consider in this project. Most + tools require manual work (batch process is not always possible), and none of them returns all the rich information + and metadata necessary to our project goal. Instead, our goal in this project is to obtain an intelligent (and + automated) system producing high quality outputs on the different languages and with a rich metadata content, + minimising the manual work required for cataloguing. + This is especially relevant since now even the smallest libraries must adapt acquisitions to the needs of culturally + heterogeneous users and are often unable to do so due to the impossibility of managing this data. Hence the urgency + of a global sharing of multicultural heritage. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + D5.1.1 Whitepaper on new algorithms + This whitepaper describes the developed algorithms for automatic text recognition, + metadata and knowledge extraction (A5.2). In particular, it details: + BM7 7 ○A prototype of algorithms for automatic text recognition. + ○A prototype of algorithms for metadata extraction. + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + + + 218 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + D5.1.2 Whitepaper on the software DIGITAL MAKTABA + This whitepaper describes the Digital Maktaba prototype, in its Data Management, + Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing features. In particular, it details: + ○A database design report + BM17 17 ○A prototype of advanced search techniques + ○A prototype of web user interface + ○A prototype of intelligent assistance ML techniques + ○A final report with description of the integrated engineered software prototype. + ○A validation of the final prototype, with a use case. + + D5.3 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + Digital Maktaba is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + BM19 19 package includes a use-case sample (drawn from D5.1.2), as well as templates. + + D5.4 Data publishing on RESILIENCE + The web portal for Digital Maktaba, with video and content to report on the + progress of the project Digital Maktaba is published on RESILIENCE. + + D5.5 Prepare DIGITAL MAKTABA for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of Digital Maktaba are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM1 1 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 219 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + + + + 220 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM3 3 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM4 4 ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + + + + 221 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM5 5 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM6 6 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 222 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM7 7 ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + + + + 223 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM8 8 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM9 9 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + + + + 224 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + + + + 225 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM13 13 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM15 15 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 226 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM17 17 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + + + 227 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM19 19 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + + + + 228 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 35.919,24 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 71.838,48 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 142.316,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis (scenario, OCR and text mining tools) + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 229 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis (OCR and text mining tools applied to DigitalMaktaba) + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 186.551,57 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 230 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST + environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 206.264,77 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + + + + 231 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/OCR + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity defines text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; it also explores exploiting object fusion + techniques, based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools, in order to maximise the efficiency of the + Development team. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 232 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, + travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Extraction + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 233 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The goal of this activity is the definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + ●Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + ●exploiting multilingual resources + ●exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 21.016,80 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 179.340,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + + + + 234 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 5.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity ensures that Digital Maktaba goes into operation and is properly set up, and that, from a data management perspective, big + data management techniques and tools are properly applied to the database for storing the extracted data and metadata. Special focus is + given to the data interchange and long-term preservation aspects, in order to allow data interchange with catalogue data from other + libraries and make the managed data readable and usable also on a long-term basis. + Finally, a web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project Digital Maktaba + is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for publishing in the + RESILIENCE marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 318.827,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 235 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 22.317,94 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 5.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the following tasks: + ●T5.4.1 [M 24-26] Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + ●T5.4.2 [M 26-28] Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + ●T5.4.3 [M 28-30] Use case workshop + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + + 236 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 5.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing, + performing the following tasks: + ●T5.3.1 [M 14-18] design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques + for interfacing / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + ○Long term preservation practices + ○Big data management / distributed + ●T5.3.2 [M16-20] definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + + + 237 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + ●T5.3.4 [M16-24] definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and + interpretable) ML algorithms: + ○to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + ○to automate publication type recognition + ○to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + ●T5.3.5 [M 25-26] Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in A5.1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + ITSERR development activity is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 829.775,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 58.084,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 238 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Validation + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, both on samples of + materials found in A5.1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 239 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 5.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital Maktaba, and setting + the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + ●T5.1.1 [M 1-6] Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the + historical-critical, linguistic perspective + ●T5.1.2 [M 1-6] Preliminary recognition of: + ○OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + ○text mining techniques + ○long term preservation of digital documents techniques + ○big data management tools/techniques + ○(interpretable) machine learning techniques + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + + + + 240 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 171.810,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.026,69 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Database Architecture + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 241 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity is tasked with the definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the extracted catalogue data + and metadata. The database, according to the specifications designed in this activity, is to be successively implemented in A5.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 151.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 242 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 50.134,56 50.134,56 + + 2 BM2 100.269,12 150.403,68 + + 3 BM3 167.994,00 318.397,68 + + 4 BM4 172.354,59 490.752,27 + + 5 BM5 172.354,59 663.106,86 + + 6 BM6 172.354,59 835.461,45 + + 7 BM7 172.354,59 1.007.816,04 + + 8 BM8 172.354,59 1.180.170,63 + + 9 BM9 172.354,59 1.352.525,22 + + 10 BM10 172.354,58 1.524.879,80 + + 13 BM13 152.354,59 1.677.234,39 + + 15 BM15 152.354,59 1.829.588,98 + + 17 BM17 152.354,59 1.981.943,57 + + 19 BM19 152.354,59 2.134.298,16 + + 21 BM21 145.022,22 2.279.320,38 + + +36 WP title + YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction +37 WP number + 6 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 243 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + +40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + YASMINE is a visual-semantic metascraper that combines semantic and mapping layers in order to extract knowledge from a specific + site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific processing. As such, + YASMINE is a significant addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem, especially as far as Search & Find research-enhancing + services are concerned: in fact it incorporates the ability of scraping and enriching visual and audio data by using Computer Vision and + Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that is converted into metadata. YASMINE is designed + for two purposes that are unique to religious studies and are described below: the Sanctuaria case-study, and the Plorabunt case-studies, + dedicated to religious shrines network and to the prayerful killed in terrorist attacks since 1982 respectively. + + Scope and goal + There are fields of research in Religious Studies whose study can be undertaken because of the existence of contemporary sources outside + traditional archival venues, but is slowed down by the lack of tools to make them available. ITSERR can assist RESILIENCE in + overcoming this by developing a prototype whose software components, using artificial intelligence, can search for data and extract + knowledge from it, and then analyse, categorise and order information related to the research topic. + The main issue is posed by the fact that the web offers a plethora of data: structured or unstructured, stored in multiple formats (i.e. texts + from XML/HTML, PDF,... Images from png, jpg, webp, etc), implemented using different technologies (static documents, dynamic + documents from CMS, API, JavaScript, etc). This heterogeneity in the web sources makes it difficult for scientists to collect, clean, + analyse, structure and organise data in ways compliant with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). + YASMINE drastically reduces the pain of finding and scraping web sources and increases the power of the scientist in creating high + quality disciplinary corpora from web sources. This will be supported by a multi-encoding, multi-lingual, multi-format and pluri-semantic + architecture to adapt the solution to the needs of the researcher. + ITSERR intends to explore two technological paths offering scientists a technical choice in terms of learning capacity, scalability, + architectural flexibility and adaptability: + YASMINE is a prototype of an open source meta-scraper with a highly modular and scalable architecture to be easily confronted to + + + + 244 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + extract very specific knowledge for various scientific projects, disciplines, etc. It will be composed of three engines: + - a semantic (structure) analyser to easily read and interpret any web data sources and create a reusable semantic layer allowing to + interpret and extract automatically the data of the web source. The semantic layer can be enriched manually by the scientist for a fine- + tuned data structure discovery and will be recorded within a semantic layer database for continuous improvement of the capacity of + YASMINE to automatically and better discover and understand any web data source. + - a data mapper: will propose the scientists with automated solutions to interpret the data discovered within the semantic layer and map + them to output data objects. This is the data mapping layer; + - a meta-scraper: supported by its multi-format, encoding, etc. capacities, using the semantic and data mapping layers to extract + knowledge from a specific site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific + processing. Semantic and data mapping layers would be part of a FAIR based repository to allow recurrent web data sources exploration + to keep the data up-to-date and share this interpretation data with the research community. + The developed metascraper, YASMINE, is then tested on two test cases, that are particularly relevant because they offer complex + research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and + read together, but which religious-historical research can no longer ignore. The two test cases, that already possess a starting database that + has been worked on, are Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, described below: + a) the case of Sanctuaria: this case study applies to the large number of shrines with religious significance and to the routes and network + that connect them. While projects addressing singular networks of sites and their connecting routes do exist, they are generally limited in + chronology and scope, and they do not integrate new knowledge extracted from the web, but limit themselves to systematising existing + knowledge. YASMINE, applied to this case study, has instead the goal of producing new knowledge about the shrines and their + connection by scraping the web for information. + b) the case of Plorabunt, a database of the prayerful killed in places of worship, worldwide, since 1982. The compilation of such a + database poses significant challenges: information ranges from the identification of the places, dates of the religious attacks, names of the + victims, names of the killers, to the storage of available digitised sources - i.e. from archives, libraries, international and local associations’ + web sites, journals, social network pages, etc. To this respect, the wealth of information available on the web, as a whole, is useless to the + researchers: the data is not ordered nor manageable in terms of scholarly investigation, and must therefore be used piecemeal. On the + contrary, appropriate web scraping and Artificial Intelligence tools for textual understanding can extract information efficiently, giving to + the researchers access to new sources, new databases and new frameworks for their activity. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A6.1: Analysis: in this activity, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts and Religious Studies researchers committed to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt test cases. + + A6.2.1: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Plorabunt: specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.2: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria: specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: On the software development side, algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping + are experimented and researched for use and optimisation within YASMINE. + A6.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: For general scientific preparation and coordination, the material experimented in A6.2.2 + and collected in A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between + A6.2.1 and A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. + + A6.3: Development: maintenance of the RESILIENCE software components library; optimisation and development of algorithms and + software for automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data, for layout analysis, for semantic structure analysis and for + data mapping; the tools are combined into YASMINE + + A6.4:Test: testing of YASMINE (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security testing, researchers community + testing, etc.), with reference to the Sanctuaria and on the Plorabunt test cases, and improved depending on feedback. + + A6.5: Operations: Creation of a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, with the expertise developed during the test + phase, released in RESILIENCE. Running YASMINE on the use case Pilgrimage, and population of the relative database; running + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + + + 245 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + marketplace. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + YASMINE, as a visual-semantic metascraper, is an unprecedented prototype that is capable of extracting specialised + information from the web, ordering it in semantic and mapping layers, and making it reusable as part of a FAIR + based repository. This allows recurrent web data sources exploration to keep the data up-to-date and share this + interpretation data with the research community. YASMINE is applied to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt case-studies. + Both attempt to architect two reusable but specialised AIs to extract specific knowledge, to use Machine Learning + methods, tools and techniques, and to perform the inception of the AI learning by “feeding” the AI with the + semantic layers discovered by YASMINE. + ITSERR intends to compare the quality of data extraction that can be achieved by pushing both technological + approaches. + Some specificities of this WP are that both projects, Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, should : + ●Support for multiple web data sources technologies/formats (XML/HTML, API, JS, etc.) + ●Support of multiple languages + ●Support of multiple alphabet/encoding + ●Support of multiple ontologies/semantics + ●Support of multiple output formats + YASMINE strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to + the search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + In itself, YASMINE produces a significant advancement as a domain-dedicated metascraper, and such advancement + is pushed by the specific requirements that are posed by the two case studies, both of great relevance for Religious + Studies. In fact, they offer complex research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual + sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and read together, but which religious-historical research + can no longer ignore. + For the Sanctuaria case, the extreme fragmentation on a regional basis of the various projects (either in progress or + concluded) highlights a potential of connections not yet investigated. Thanks to YASMINE, the case-study intends + to create a network that identifies transversal research paths: cults, architectures, sources, to be identified on the + national territory but also in its Global extensions. + With regards to the Plorabunt project, YASMINE organises and provides access to an enormous amount of data + and sources on attacks against the prayerful in places of worship. Because of the wide scope of Plorabunt and of the + difficulties in finding on the web reliable information, the use of an intelligent metascraper is pivotal for treating and + analysing such a vast data source without limiting the scope of the research. To this respect, YASMINE offers a + breakthrough technology model, which is innovative and versatile enough to find other applications even beyond + the domain of Religious Studies. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + + + + 246 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + D6.1.1 Whitepaper on YASMINE + This deliverable describes YASMINE, a metascraper that is capable of performing: + 1)Automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data + 2)Layout analysis to automatically extract texts and images + 3)Semantic mapping of web pages, adding a semantic layer that acts as a + destination language. + 4)Interpretation of the semantic layer and mapping of its elements to data objects. + The deliverable also describes the output of the scraping activity, in form of FAIR- + compliant metadata. + D6.1.2 Whitepaper on Sanctuaria datasets + BM10 10 This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Sanctuaria test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Sanctuaria test-case. + D6.1.3 Whitepaper on Plorabunt datasets + This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Plorabunt test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Plorabunt + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + D6.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The training material for YASMINE is the output of this deliverable. It is built + upon the experience obtained through testing (A6.4) and through the previous + stages of development (A6.1-A6.3), with the help of IT experts, testers and + BM19 19 scholars. Training material is also produced, for integration with the + RESILIENCE research infrastructure. Additionally, documentation and training + materials are provided for accessing the databases dedicated to the two use cases, + Sanctuaria and Plorabunt. + + BM21 21 D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + + + + 247 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + The Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets are made available through RESILIENCE. + This aims at obtaining a double result: on the one hand, it provides researchers + with two powerful databases for pushing forward their research on two relevant + topics for Religious Studies; on the other hand, it displays the potentialities of + BM21 21 YASMINE and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other domains. + D6.4 Prepare YASMINE for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of YASMINE are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + BM1 1 M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + + + + 248 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM2 2 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM3 3 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 249 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + BM4 4 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + + + + 250 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM5 5 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + + + + 251 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM6 6 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + + 252 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM7 7 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM8 8 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 253 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM9 9 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + + + + 254 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM10 10 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + + + + 255 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM13 13 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 256 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM17 17 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + + + + 257 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM19 19 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + + + + 258 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM21 21 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + 259 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 50.134,56 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 100.269,12 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on YASMINE + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 167.994,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + + + + 260 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of YASMINE in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 172.354,58 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 261 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Second release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Application of YASMINE to the two case-studies + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 145.022,22 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + 262 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 274 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 28.028,36 28.028,36 + + 2 BM2 56.056,72 84.085,08 + + 3 BM3 110.462,52 194.547,60 + + 4 BM4 114.823,10 309.370,70 + + 5 BM5 114.823,10 424.193,80 + + 6 BM6 114.823,10 539.016,90 + + 7 BM7 114.823,10 653.840,00 + + 8 BM8 114.823,10 768.663,10 + + 9 BM9 114.823,10 883.486,20 + + 10 BM10 114.823,12 998.309,32 + + 13 BM13 114.823,10 1.113.132,42 + + 15 BM15 114.823,10 1.227.955,52 + + 17 BM17 114.823,10 1.342.778,62 + + 19 BM19 114.823,10 1.457.601,72 + + 21 BM21 85.283,78 1.542.885,50 + + + 36 WP title + REVER - REVErse Regesta + 37 WP number + 7 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 275 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + REVER is a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles (the regesta) to the + documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a regestum, by applying to + documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it takes advantage of the RESILIENCE + research infrastructure ecosystem, but it also represents a significant addition to it (and beyond). In fact, REVER is different from + existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the + contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. + + Scope and goal + Between the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, several scholars and erudites interested in the archival documents produced in the + Middle Ages tirelessly produced a large quantity of regesta (i.e. scholarly summaries of the contents of archival documents of diverse + natures). Paradoxically, the use of this scholarly literature, which bears extraordinary and unrepeatable scientific value, has fallen into + disuse without becoming obsolete: the fact that twenty-first-century scholars have become more and more accustomed to find online + significant segments of the information they look for has contributed to putting into jeopardy the immense treasure of regesta. Expert- + augmented machine learning will allow for the reconnection of the original sources to the regesta and will rescue two ‘old’ treasures (both + archival documents and the regesta themselves), thus making readily available to the scientific community the semantic density, complexity + and stratification of the regesta and pave the way to innovations. + Ecclesiastical sources are the typology of documents on which this intellectual exercise has been carried out most decisively and precisely. + For this reason, the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (an already existing collection of ecclesiastical documents from the origins of the + Latin Church to the twelfth century), represents an ideal sample dataset for applying expert-augmented machine learning to reconnect the + sources and their summaries (i.e. the regesta). + This activity requires a unique type of text summarisation algorithms that must be able to operate with different languages and with + domain-specific categories. The aim is therefore not to merely apply Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to a specific set of + texts (i.e. the regesta and the documents that they summarise): rather, the aim is to produce a new algorithm that is able to apply + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + + + + 276 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + pertaining to Religious Studies). Given that the regesta and the documents they summarise might not be already been digitised in textual + format, this activity will also take care of developing Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) tools, for translating handwritten texts into + digital text, and OCR tools for converting printed texts in a digital version. + The existing text summarisation software, based either on text extraction algorithms, or on text abstraction algorithms, or a combination + or both (such as LSA-Text-Summarisation, NAMAS, or TextRank), are meant to work in one direction only (from the full text to + the summary) and thus with a top-down approach; thanks to the coherence provided by the domain-related documents and to the + possibility of hyperlinking already existing summaries (i.e. the regesta) to the full documents, new algorithms can be developed and trained + to work in both directions, thanks to a positive feedback mechanism. In other words, it becomes capable of summarising documents in + regesta-type entries, but also of linking existing (or newly created) summaries to their sources. + The fact that regesta can be (and often are) written in a language that is different from the one of the documents they refer to adds a layer + of complexity: a form of reverse engineering based on algorithms capable of operating in different (or even encrypted) languages, like + ReFormat, is therefore required. + In addition to developing and optimising the algorithm(s), the WP develops a visualisation software for presenting the connections between + regesta and full documents, automatically hyperlinking the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their source. The software can + be operated offline or online and, for the scope of this WP, it is designed to display the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. + + Activities envisaged in the WP + A7.1 Analysis: Recognition of the use-case corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the documents they refer to) for algorithm + processing (i.e. pre-processing), production of scientific and technical requirements + + A7.2.1: Scientific preparation/IT: IT supervision and creation of guidelines for pre-processing corpora for REVER. + A7.2.2: Scientific preparation/Corpus building: supervision and corpus building on the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum for REVER. + A7.2.3: Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing: Application of guidelines for pre-processing the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + to be processed by REVER. + A7.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: coordination between IT and scientific research, and validation of the other activities in the + WP. + + A7.3: Development: development of text ranking and text summarisation algorithms for REVER, development of user interface, OCR + optimisation (where required). + + A7.4: Test: testing lifecycle on the desktop and server software (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security + testing, researchers community testing, etc.). + + A7.5: Operations: REVER desktop and server solutions go into production. Running REVER on the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum, release of the database created through REVER in RESILIENCE, and publication of REVER for the research + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, ETC + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + This WP develops an algorithm that serves as matcher from a summarised text to its original source and vice versa, + even when the summary and the full text are in different languages; the WP also develops an attached software for + the search and visualisation of results and takes care of digitising handwritten or printed documents. All prototypes + are able to work online and offline, with an accessible User Interface. Through expert-augmented machine learning, + the prototype will automatically hyperlink the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their transcribed full- + text source, matching the keywords and the most relevant elements in the summary to the extended version of the + source. This project allows: + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + + + + 277 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + allowing a wider and deeper access to fundamental sources; + 2.to make available the knowledge developed in the nineteenth century, thus preserving a repository of knowledge + that is foundational for the development of more refined research; + 3.and finally to develop in a new and innovative way the processes of machine learning/AI. + REVER strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Automatic text summarisation with machine learning is an already existing technology. However, generic text + summarisation is by definition non-specific, and does not add value to the summarised text: indeed, any summary is + specifically carried out to subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. On the other hand, the + proposed algorithm, with its capability of working both ways and of applying semantic and domain-specific + principles, does produce added value: for the full text, it produces a regestum, that is not just a summary, but a + domain-specific summary, with completely different criteria from generic text summarisation. On the other hand, + for the single regestum it provides a hyperlink to the full document to the domain-specific summary. + Starting from abstractive summarisation principles, this technology will be integrated with palaeographic and + diplomatic methodology to fuel – with a scientific and highly specialised knowledge – a machine learning process + capable of incrementing knowledge. + As a software prototype, REVER is also capable of being integrated in the wider RESILIENCE Research + Infrastructure, enlarging its field of application and its accessibility to the scholarly community at an european and + international level. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D7.1.1 Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + This whitepaper contains guidelines for corpus pre-processing is meant to provide + clear and usable instructions for researchers who wish to have their corpus + processed by REVER. The guidelines are developed according to the experience + BM5 5 developed with the case-study corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum), but + they are written to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not + corpus-specific, but rather software-specific, and can be updated throughout the + work of the WP. + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + BM13 13 This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + + + + 278 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + 1)Tools for handwritten text recognition of historical manuscripts and OCR on + digitised documents, according to the principles set by D7.1.1. + 2)an algorithm that is able to link the regesta to the documents they refer to, in an + automated way. The algorithm is tailored to the study-case, but is Open Source – + like all the other WP deliverables – and is passible for further improvement, + adaptation and optimisation. + BM13 13 3)An algorithm that performs the opposite work of the previous one. It is capable + of producing a regestum-like summary of a source text, by extracting information + in a domain-related way. It differs from text summarisation and non-specific text + extraction, since it produces a type of summary that is specifically tailored for the + study-case domain. It therefore ranks information automatically according to the + uses and needs of the scholarly community, and can be trained through machine + learning for optimising results. It is Open Source and is potentially adaptable to + other domains, beyond that of Religious Studies for which it was designed. + + D7.1.3 Whitepaper on REVER + This deliverable is a whitepaper describing REVER, i.e. the implementations of the + algorithms described in D7.1.2 with a user interface that allows browsing and + BM15 15 visualising the analysed corpus, linking existing regesta with their sources and + producing new regesta from existing sources. The deliverable is tested as a part of + activity A7.4, and the test results are used for further improvement and for + producing D7.2. + + BM17 17 - + + D7.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The training material indispensable for using REVER is the output of this + BM19 19 deliverable. It is built upon the experience obtained through testing (T.7) and + through the previous stages of development (T.1-T.6), with the help of IT experts, + testers and scholars. + + D7.3 Data publishing of new metadata on Regesta Pontificum Romanorum onto + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D7.1.3 and the documentation + written for D7.2, along with data prepared according to D.7.1.1, are combined in + the release of a browsable online version of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + through RESILIENCE. This produces a double output: on the one hand, it + provides researchers with a powerful prototype for accessing an important corpus + BM21 21 of documents (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum); on the other hand, it displays + the potentialities of REVER and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other + domains. + D7.4 Prepare REVER for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of REVER are packaged as + Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM1 1 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 279 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM2 2 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 280 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM3 3 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 281 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + BM4 4 M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + + + + 282 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM5 5 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 283 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + BM7 7 ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + + + + 284 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM8 8 For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 285 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + BM9 9 in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + + + + 286 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM10 10 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM13 13 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + + + + 287 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + + + + 288 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM17 17 ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + + + + 289 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM19 19 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + + + 290 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM21 21 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 28.028,36 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + 291 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 56.056,72 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 110.462,52 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 292 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of sources>regesta algorithm + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of regesta>sources algorithm + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.823,12 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of the SW in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 293 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.283,78 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 294 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 305 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 30.032,14 30.032,14 + + 2 BM2 60.064,27 90.096,41 + + 3 BM3 108.791,69 198.888,10 + + 4 BM4 114.282,80 313.170,90 + + 5 BM5 114.282,80 427.453,70 + + 6 BM6 114.282,80 541.736,50 + + 7 BM7 114.282,80 656.019,30 + + 8 BM8 114.282,80 770.302,10 + + 9 BM9 114.282,80 884.584,90 + + 10 BM10 114.282,77 998.867,67 + + 13 BM13 114.282,80 1.113.150,47 + + 15 BM15 114.282,80 1.227.433,27 + + 17 BM17 114.282,80 1.341.716,07 + + 19 BM19 114.282,80 1.455.998,87 + + 21 BM21 85.490,22 1.541.489,09 + + + 36 WP title + uBIQUity + 37 WP number + 8 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 306 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 9 Dipartimento di Architettura CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + In accordance with RESILIENCE’s objectives, uBIQUity intends to develop, and provide the scientific community of religious sciences + with, a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient + commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. These commentaries contain an immense patrimony of religious + scholarship and are unique sources for the study of the knowledge and readings of these two sacred texts through the centuries. Intertextual + references, whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the + sacred texts “ubiquitous”; in addition, references to existing, real-world “places of religious memory” add a further layer of significance to + uBIQUity. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the “collective + memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. Connecting exegetical works to real-world (and + sometimes shared) places allows to open a new avenue for looking at religious commentaries, further empowering the RESILIENCE + research-enhancing services. + + Scope and goal + Building upon the wealth of pre-existing resources, uBIQUity will produce a more performant software prototype for a machine-learning + search engine. It will be specifically projected to identify with a higher degree of accuracy both explicit and non-explicit quotations and + allusions to the Bible and to the Qur’ān through two huge corpora: Christian and Islamic commentaries. Expanding beyond the textual + level, it also includes the capability of linking places referred to in the texts to existing (or once-existing) places, enhancing the + understanding of the religious context. This new research prototype might develop further applications in the research of intertextual + references in different kinds of literary production. + As source material, uBIQUity includes all edited commentaries on the Bible composed from the Patristic age until the Late Byzantine + period, both in Greek and Latin; all edited classical commentaries on the Qur’ān composed in Arabic from the rise of Islam until the + 15th century. + Regarding the current state of the art, the following can be noted: + - Commentaries on the Bible: today, the only tool available to find Biblical references in patristic works is BiblIndex + (https://www.biblindex.org/en). Limits of BiblIndex: 1) it does not directly search through the texts but only relies on Biblical passages + identified as such by the editors of each work; 2) the corpus of authors is characterised by remarkable lacunae (e.g., Augustine of Hippo); + intentionally, Byzantine and middle-Latin Biblical commentaries are excluded. Differently, it is possible to search for Biblical references + through the corpora of Greek and Latin works digitised and uploaded on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Thesaurus + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + + + 307 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + been uploaded; 2) they are not specifically devised to explore the use of Biblical quotations/allusions both in a quantitative and + qualitative perspective. + - Commentaries on the Qur’ān: the only tools that allow to find Qur’ānic quotations in the Islamic classical commentaries (tafsīr) are: al- + Mawsūa al- Shāmila (https://shamela.ws/category/3 and https://old.shamela.ws/index.php/category/127); Great Tafsirs + (https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_Library.aspx?Menu=1&LanguageID=1); Altafsir + (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID= + 1); Ğāmi al-Tafāsīr 3 (https://abrenoor.ir/ar/app/abrenoor_jamitafasir3). However, they do not contain all the tafsīr literature + already edited and do not have important functions such as the possibility of cross-references among commentaries, n-grams, statistics, + morphological and semantic analysis of words. + + uBIQUity will combine and implement (with approx. 20% of increased efficacy) the already existing resources by means of licence + agreements and collaboration with potential partners (e.g., TLG, TLL, Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum) and the adoption of + detecting plagiarism softwares (e.g., iThenticate) as well as corpus query tools (e.g., AntConc, Wordsmith). In addition, it opens a new + road for context understanding by linking textual and spatial elements with religious significance. Technicians will integrate the pre- + existing models with the most advanced methods of semantic word-embedding (e.g., word3vec) according to uBIQUity’s outcomes. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A8.1: Analysis and Prototyping: Preliminary scientific and technical work: analysis and mapping of the corpora, analysis of technical + requirements and scientific needs. + + A8.2.1: Scientific Preparation/IT: verification of the technical and scientific requirements, software experimenting, acquisition of software + licences. + A8.2.2: Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran: corpus acquisition and interaction with TLG, TLL; corpus acquisition and + interaction with Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum partners. + A8.2.3: Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation: linking of places and spaces described in Qu’ranic and Biblical texts and + commentaries to existing (or once-existing) places. + + A8.3: Development: Development of a software specifically aimed at recognizing and detecting Biblical and Qur’ānic quotations and + allusions in the corpora. + + A8.4: Test: deployment and testing of two websites (Biblical and Qur’ānic commentaries) hosted by a shared platform, which will + interoperate with the same software projected to work with three different alphabets and languages (Greek, Latin, and Arabic). + + A8.5: Operations: uBIQUity goes in production. Running uBIQUity on the two corpora, release of the service in RESILIENCE- + RI.EU platform, and publication of uBIQUity for marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The WP makes available a full set of digitised commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān written in the established + chronological frame. Texts will undergo a formal revision by specialists of Greek, Latin and Arabic. Where + necessary, texts will be lemmatized and morphologically tagged. The commentaries will be indexed according to the + author’s name / work titles / century. This work will contribute to building two databases that will be made + accessible to the scientific community. Users will be able to query the databases through different access keys. Each + commentary will be accompanied by an updated bibliography. Thanks to the results of this WP, researchers will be + able to quickly and accurately identify quotations/allusions in ancient commentaries on the sacred texts of + Christianity and Islam. Furthemore, more functions will be made available in uBIQUity, such as n-grams, statistics, + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + + + + 308 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + (also visual) subsets quotations/allusions found in commentaries according to their possible variant readings. + uBIQUity strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + search&find and collaboration tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation: + There are no databases specifically dedicated to ancient commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān. Some + commentaries have never been digitised and this first step will make an outstanding literary and exegetical heritage + available for researchers’ needs. The set of annexed instruments requires a Religious Studies expertise to be properly + laid out, and the Religious Studies scholarly community remains its primary target: the set of instruments, however, + will be auxiliary to other involved research fields, such as philology, textual criticism, history, and others. + With regards to the primary target domain, namely Religious Studies, the use of a more adequate and advanced + toolkit for concordances and text analysis is capable of allowing the achievement of significantly better results + compared to now. Semantic computational analysis will produce new research acquisitions. Reconstructing with the + highest degree of accuracy the way a text or an author dialogues with other texts or authors (through direct or + indirect, implicit, quotations, allusions, imitations or re-writings) means to clearly visualise and, hence, to be able to + explore more efficiently the continuous and unavoidable dialectic between past and present, tradition and + innovation, which lies at the very basis of hermeneutics. The proposed digital prototype aims at creating a shared + research instrument that will fill the gap resulting from the lack of a standard scientific approach. Besides, identifying + the range of quotations/allusions present in a certain author’s work will help visually reconstruct their Biblical or + Qur’ānic library, i.e., the number and kind of their readings. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D8.1.1 Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + This whitepaper describes the functions of the algorithms producing concordances + list, indicating possible allusions, and carrying out citation network analysis on the + BM6 6 corpora under scrutiny. The whitepaper also details how to prepare a corpus for + processing, even in different languages and alphabets, drawing from experience + obtained by working with the Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries. + + BM7 7 - + + D8.1.2 Whitepaper on uBIQUity + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of uBIQUity, intended as a + software that runs the algorithms and the functions described in D8.1.1 on two + BM8 8 twin websites (for Bible and Qur’an) hosted by a shared platform. This deliverable + details the type of operations that can be performed on the corpora, and collects + the results of preliminary testing, serving as a basis for the training material and the + documentation to be provided for uBIQUity. + + BM9 9 - + + + + + 309 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D8.1.3 Whitepaper on the results using UBIQUITY on Bible and Qur'anic + commentaries + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to uBIQUity, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It not only describes uBIQUity’s performances in theory (as with + D8.1.2), but it also presents the results of its operation “on the field”, thus acting + not only as a prototype or a scientific demonstrator, but as a potential instrument + for producing new knowledge and opening new roads for research. + + BM17 17 - + + D8.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM19 19 uBIQUity is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + package includes use-case samples (drawn from D8.1.3), as well as templates. + + D8.3 Publishing of new Bible and Qur'anic commentaries metadata on + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D8.1.2 and the documentation + written for D8.2, along with data prepared according to D.8.1.1 guidelines, are + combined in the release of two websites (for Bible and Qu’ran, each with their + relative commentaries), hosted by a shared platform through RESILIENCE and + powered by uBIQUity. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly community + BM21 21 a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and exploring the + connections between religious texts and their commentaries; on the other hand, + this displays the potentialities of uBIQUity, setting a new standard for tools + dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also for other domains. + D8.4 Prepare uBIQUity for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of uBIQUity are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + + + + 310 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + BM2 2 ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + + + + 311 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM3 3 ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + + + + 312 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM4 4 For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + + + + 313 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM5 5 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + + + + 314 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM6 6 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 315 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM7 7 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 316 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM8 8 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM9 9 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 317 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM10 10 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 318 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + + + + 319 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + + + + 320 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM17 17 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + + + + 321 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM19 19 ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + + + + 322 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + BM21 21 ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 323 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 30.032,14 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 60.064,27 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of the Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 108.791,69 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 324 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered; Approval of second release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.282,77 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 325 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.490,22 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + + + + 326 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 336 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 27.301,64 27.301,64 + + 2 BM2 54.603,28 81.904,92 + + 3 BM3 80.419,44 162.324,36 + + 4 BM4 83.395,04 245.719,40 + + 5 BM5 83.395,04 329.114,44 + + 6 BM6 83.395,04 412.509,48 + + 7 BM7 83.395,04 495.904,52 + + 8 BM8 83.395,04 579.299,56 + + 9 BM9 83.395,04 662.694,60 + + 10 BM10 83.395,07 746.089,67 + + 13 BM13 83.395,04 829.484,71 + + 15 BM15 83.395,04 912.879,75 + + 17 BM17 83.395,04 996.274,79 + + 19 BM19 83.395,04 1.079.669,83 + + 21 BM21 66.166,42 1.145.836,25 + + + 36 WP title + TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies + 37 WP number + 9 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 337 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + + 40 WP Leader + Stefano De Martino, Full Professor, OU10 UNITO-DSS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + The work package has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and + materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally + applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains two such instruments: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: tablets from the Near East. + - ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. + + Scope and goal + The tool prototypes developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope + and application. More in particular: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: cuneiform tablets from the Near East. + This prototype is dedicated to the collection and representation of the about two millions of cuneiform tablets and bullae documenting + history and religion(s) of the Near East. They are written in cuneiform writing but in different languages, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, + Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite, Hattic, Luwian, and Ugaritic. A significant part of them features religion-specific content, but their + accessibility remains an issue for contemporary scholars. In fact, the tablets are dispersed in several museums in the world, and can often + be accessed only through hand copies and photographs. Hand copies, however, are a subjective work and can contain mistakes. + Photographs, on the other hand, can represent only with great difficulty the curved surface of the tablet. Thus, neither of these traditional + methods can be considered satisfyingly accurate. Even physical access to the document is often not a viable option, because of their fragility + and/or because of unstable political situations in the places where they are stored and preserved. EnLil aims at making cuneiform tablets + accessible in a 3D virtual representation. We aim at testing all the available instrumentation on the collection of tablets in Torino (Musei + Reali) in order ro check the most reliable and low cost equipment. Some of the 3D photo instruments are very expensive and Middle + Eastern Museums cannot support these costs. After the survey of the available instrumentation we will be able to share with the producers + the needs required by the best high resolution 3DScan for the virtual representation of any possible object with a curved surface. A test + will be made on a collection of tablets (either in Turkey or in Iraq) with a virtual reconstruction of the building where the tablesìts had + been kept (MiRAr project). In addition, we will train members of the staff of some Turkish and/or Iraqi museums. Among the other + projects of representation of the cuneiform tablets, the most advanced is the project led by the Universities of Wuerzburg, Mainz and + Dortmund whose focus is analysing the characters of cuneiform writing and putting together the pieces of fragmented documents, while we + propose to reconstruct a virtual ancient library with its content. A collaboration with the aforementioned project is on our agenda. + - ACIS – Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. This prototype aims to merge the domains of archival digitization and informative + modelling by using artificial intelligence (AI) applications to serve as a shared information collection layer for EnLil and MiRAr. + The general objective of ACIS is therefore the systematisation and optimization of documentary knowledge, making archival, + bibliographic and iconographic sources interoperable and accessible through the extraction of innovative information from multimedia + digital archives based on deep learning techniques. In principle, ACIS also makes possible a layered 3d visualisation of the artefacts + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + + + 338 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + pertaining to each object. Modification and restoration vicissitudes, collection and exhibition history, visual and literary sources are + reconstructed and analysed comprehensively, as evidence of the "life" of artworks in relation to more general instances of change, including + mentality, taste, culture, materials, meaning and ideology, and social structure. The project also integrates the "future life" of works of art, + integrating knowledge of techniques, restoration practices and preventive maintenance protocols. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A9.1: Analysis and prototyping: recognition and experimenting of 3d acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS); + analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts); layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre- + processing of source archives (where needed); layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and + made available to ACIS and then to EnLil (for tablets and sites). + + A9.2: Scientific Preparation: acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; mapping of the history of conservation for works + of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of preservation, collector and museum history (for + ACIS); validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in the following activity (A9.3). + + A9.3: Development: development of software specified in A9.1, with a prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, + sites, artefacts); development of a repository as required by A9.1; enhancement and optimisation of 3d visualisation software for each of + the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + + A9.4: Test: the acquisition system is tested; the automatic metadatation prototype is tested; the optimised visualisation prototypes for + EnLil, ACIS are tested; testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated + for improvement of the prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + + A9.5: Operation: EnLil and ACIS are implemented and run on specific use-cases; the resulting databases are published on + RESILIENCE.EU; EnLil and ACIS are prepared for publication to RIs software marketplace such as EOSC/SSHOC, + CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The aim of TAURUS is to push forward our understanding of ancient religions by allowing researchers to access + documents in a new way. + In the case of written documents, with EnLil, it provides a technology for 3D acquisition and visualisation, which is + fundamental for objects that are fragile and tri-dimensional like cuneiform tablets and bullae; in addition, it enlarges + the corpus available to researchers, laying the foundation for further discovery, and locates them in the place of + discovery. + In the case of heritage artefacts, ACIS draws information from available archives and databases on the status and the + conservational history of each artefact. As such, it serves as a data source (or as a data enricher) for EnLil (when the + artefacts are tablets, and contextualised in space); additionally, it is also usable as a self-standing service for + visualisation of the single artefact (or artefact collection). + + TAURUS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + + Motivation + TAURUS optimises effort to overcome shortages of current tools available for Religious Studies and Archaeology + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + + + 339 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + 1)With EnLil, it overcomes the difficulty of the availability of the real cuneiform tablets and bullae by means of a + 3D-capable digital library, maximising exploitability of all the available data (content of the documents, their + materiality, state of preservation, lay out, palaeography of the writing, connections among texts coming from + different ages and countries, places of discovery) + 2)With ACIS, it makes available information on the transformations that artefacts have undergone in substance and + location. Through the history of restoration, it allows researchers and users to access the stories of objects but also + of the people who have observed, loved, stole, bought, stored, restored and studied them. Another effect of ACIS is + connected to issues of restoration and preventive conservation, a complex case where it is necessary to consider the + needs of the historic buildings and their relationship with the needs of the collections. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D9.1.1 Whitepaper on EnLil + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of EnLil , intended as a + software that performs 3D virtual representation and builds a virtual ancient + BM6 6 library. Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes + EnLil in its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in + subsequent phases. + + BM7 7 - + + D9.1.2 Whitepaper on ACIS + This whitepaper focuses on reconstructing the mechanisms of ACIS and + illustrating the links between existing sources and databases. There are two steps: + BM8 8 1) the definition of a protocol for the narration of the conservative history of the + artistic heritage and 2) the connection between diagnostic techniques and + preventive maintenance + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D9.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM15 15 TAURUS is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of two + training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + + D9.3.1 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - EnLil + BM17 17 The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + + + + 340 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by EnLil itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of EnLil. + D9.3.2 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - ACIS + The database created by using ACIS on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by ACIS itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototyp for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of ACIS. + + BM19 19 - + + D9.4 Prepare the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS) for publication to + RESILIENCE marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of the TAURUS toolkit + elements are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the software + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM1 1 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 341 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM2 2 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM3 3 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 342 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM4 4 ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + + + 343 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM5 5 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 344 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + + + + 345 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM8 8 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + + + 346 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM9 9 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM10 10 ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + + + + 347 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + BM13 13 ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + + + + 348 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM15 15 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM17 17 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 349 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM19 19 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + + + + 350 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM21 21 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 27.301,64 + + IO Desciption + + + + 351 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.603,28 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on EnLil + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 80.419,44 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on ACIS + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 352 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 83.395,07 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in PRODUCTION environment; second release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + + + 353 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 66.166,42 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + + + + 354 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 361 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 22.386,98 22.386,98 + + 2 BM2 44.773,97 67.160,95 + + 3 BM3 95.101,00 162.261,95 + + 4 BM4 101.788,50 264.050,45 + + 5 BM5 101.788,50 365.838,95 + + 6 BM6 101.788,50 467.627,45 + + 7 BM7 101.788,50 569.415,95 + + 8 BM8 101.788,50 671.204,45 + + 9 BM9 101.788,50 772.992,95 + + 10 BM10 101.788,55 874.781,50 + + 13 BM13 101.788,50 976.570,00 + + 15 BM15 101.788,50 1.078.358,50 + + 17 BM17 101.788,50 1.180.147,00 + + 19 BM19 101.788,50 1.281.935,50 + + 21 BM21 70.812,00 1.352.747,50 + + +36 WP title + ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond +37 WP number + 10 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 362 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + +40 WP Leader + Andrea D'Andrea, Senior Research Fellow, OU4 UNIOR-DAAM +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + This WP aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive dedicated to + complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it uses texts from + the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. About this case-study, the WP firstly produces an analysis of the most correct procedures + for the digitization and online publication of ancient texts and manuscripts; secondly, it sets out to develop a software able to support + scholars in the research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. The procedures and the software blueprint are intended to be + applicable to a diverse spectrum of texts, even beyond the case-study under scrutiny. + + Scope and goal + Many ancient textual documents from the Nile Valley and the other neighbour regions of north-eastern Africa, and the Near East deal + with religious content. They are written in hieroglyph, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Latin, and Coptic alphabet, Meroitic hieroglyph and + cursive, old Nubian script, epigraphic South Arabian, Arabic and Ge'ez script. The used languages are Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old + Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, Arabic and Ge‘ez. The support materials of the texts are stone, clay, + papyrus, parchment, pottery, wood. Consequently, the adopted tools range from the stylus to the cisel. + The chronology of these texts ranges from the end of the 4th millennium BC, with the earliest hieroglyph inscriptions, to the 15th century + AD, with the latest Old Nubian documents (later productions in Arabic and Coptic, mainly consist of manuscripts, lay beyond the scope + of this WP and can be covered in other RESILIENCE activities). The contents of these texts are very different and varied: descriptions + of religious ceremonies, funerary texts, prayers, incantations, lists of offerings and temple personnel, etc. + A data set of a large and rich selection of these texts (in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of + South Arabian, Ge‘ez, Arabic) is still lacking and only some partial digital archives are currently available. + As far as texts on stone and other hard supports are concerned, only very partial and unsystematic programs of scanning of inscriptions + and associated structures have been undertaken in the Nile Valley area. Still very recently (2016) teams working on the implementation + of partial corpora were relying on traditional, even if digital, photographic technique (see e.g., the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by the + Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents). Other projects, although adopting more technologically advanced procedures, including the + use of laser scanning technology, were focussing on a single site and a single type of writing support, like in the case of the von Humboldt + Universität project at in the Meroitic monumental complex at Musawwarat es-Sufra or of the Münich Museum project at the Meroitic + site of Naqa. “The Picturing Religion: The Philae Temple Graffiti Project” by the Simon Fraser University is ongoing at Philae, in + Egypt and is aimed at recording all the religious graffiti characterizing the temple. Similar activities of scanning rocky facades with rock + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + + + + 363 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + The automatic textual analysis was also only very rarely attempted in the study of the inscribed documents form the Nile valley. A very + famous and precocious, but very soon abandoned example was represented by Meroitic inscriptions and took place through the digitization + of the transliterated texts. In any case, as in the case of manuscripts, no attempts were made to integrate in a single procedure the scan of + the document, the analysis of its text and the analysis of the support. + In the case of funerary contexts, although some projects were undertaken for digitising tombs in the Nile valley, like in the case of the + Saite Saqqara Tombs Project of the University of Tübingen, this was not related to the analysis of the texts associated to the tombs and + of the writing support. + The same tardiness can be remarked in adopting digital technologies not only for recording but also for analysing texts on papyrus and the + writing support itself. Moreover, also in this case only specific projects on single collections can be remarked, like in the case of the ongoing + TPOP project in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. + Even in the case of manuscripts (and other texts on soft supports, such as papyrus, parchment etc.) from the Nile Valley, only specific + and sometimes partial projects were conducted so far (see a list at Digitized Manuscript Collections - A Research Guide to Middle + Eastern Studies - Guides at Penn Libraries (upenn.edu)). So far no attempts were made to relate the scanning of the manuscripts to the + automatic identification and analysis of the text, as well as to the analysis of the writing support. Moreover, the lack of suitable portable + equipment should be lamented, as this greatly limits the possibility of recording large collections of manuscripts kept in far and remote + locations. + Even when attempts were made to conduct an automatised linguistic analysis of the texts, like, e.g. the one conducted on Sahidic Coptic + manuscripts by the University of Colorado, the textual analysis was unrelated to the implementation of a digital reproduction of the + manuscript and to the analysis of the writing support. + + ReTINA aims to create an environment that in the first place lays out and optimises common guidelines for the digitisation and digital + archiving of such a diverse array of sources, accounting for the challenges posed by the very different languages and writing support types. + Secondly, building on these guidelines, it aims to produce a blueprint and a prototype of a software tool for supporting scholars in the + research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. In the third place, it uses the guidelines, the software prototype and domain- + specific expertise to lay out specifications for hardware that can be used to acquire texts in different support even in difficult environments + (because of climatic, political, or economical reasons). + The interconnection between the merely textual element and the religious component, given by the very nature of the texts under scrutiny, + allows ReTINA to go beyond the linguistic aspect, assisting researchers with the necessary information on context, religious significance + and religious history that allow to improve the interpretation of the analysed documents. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A10.1: Analysis. This activity is focused on selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from + different times, regions, languages and supports. + + A10.2: Scientific preparation. Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing of the datasets and description of the original contexts of + relevance with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts. + + A10.3: Development. This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the + complexity of the case study. The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process. Finally, it develops + a software prototype for annotation and visualisation of the texts. + + A10.4: Test. This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3 + + A10.5: Operations. This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for + release in the RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and + scientific point of view. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + + + + 364 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + ReTINA empowers RESILIENCE RI by implementing a digital archive containing some datasets of religious + content from sites in the ancient world along the Nile Valley and its surroundings, including various languages and + cultures. Starting with a comprehensive review of the state of the art in the field of study (white paper) and using + digital datasets available to the research unit, a data model will be designed. The schema will be consistent with the + main international metadata standards, taxonomies and thesauri and will be published as Open Data and/or Linked + Open Data to encourage the spread of the principles of FAIR data and, more generally, of Open Science in this area + of study. Some mapping procedures, which will allow to carry out a data-integration among data encoded according + to different schemas, will be designed, and implemented to facilitate the integration of various datasets and + heterogenous archives. + The goal is achieved through completion of several steps, examining digital datasets already directly available to + UNIOR or through agreements in place with Italian Museums and Archives to highlight strengths and weaknesses + in the sharing and reuse of data. At the same time, other paper archives (cards, photos, texts, etc.) will be digitised + according to a data scheme developed by UNIOR. + The digital archives will be compared and integrated thanks to the semantic and syntactic interoperability guaranteed + by the adoption of international metadata. The texts, appropriately transliterated, will be able to be annotated by the + users who will also be able to visualise the support of the text in 3D and have precise information on the material + used to inscribe the subject with religious content. Different digitisations approaches and 3D technologies will be + tried to identify ways to digitally acquire these materials; the results will give important results on the best practices + to create digital resources compliant with the requisite of RESILIENCE. + + ReTINA strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + ReTINA addresses a gap in the digital description and fruition of Religious Texts in ancient and rare script and from + complex contexts by optimising a shared data model and by producing software prototype for fruition. The domain- + specific character of Religious Studies, where the linguistic significance of the texts must be linked to specific + historical, theological and cultural factors, allows to account for descriptors that go beyond the merely linguistic + level, and can lay the basis for further digitisation works. The fragmented context of the Nile Valley case-study + represents a microcosmos that can be extended to other equally (or more) fragmented contexts: ReTINA therefore + represents a prototype that, thanks to digitisation and complex visualisation, can increase knowledge and + understanding even beyond the Nile Valley. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + BM6 6 This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + + + + 365 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + BM6 6 archives on ancient religious content, and serves as a basis for the further + development of ReTINA. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 . + + D10.2: Preliminary Data-Model + This deliverable contains the schema for encoding texts and manuscripts according + BM9 9 to Open Science principles, accounting for the different supports and for the + specificities due to the religious nature of the texts. + + D10.3: Data-acquisition procedures + This deliverable validates the preliminary data-model, and completes it by + BM10 10 describing procedures to digitise texts and manuscripts and to enrich the + digitisation with 3D data, chemical and Mineralogical data etc. + + BM13 13 - + + D10.4: Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface + This deliverable consists of a prototype of ReTINA, a software prototype for + BM15 15 annotating texts and manuscripts according to the specifications of D10.3,for + archiving, and for visualising the annotated texts and the relative + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D10.5 Prepare ReTINA for publication to RESILIENCE RI marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of ReTINA are packaged + BM21 21 as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. In addition the validated guidelines + are published for re-use by the scholarly community + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 366 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM2 2 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 367 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + BM3 3 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM4 4 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 368 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM5 5 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + + + + 369 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM6 6 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM7 7 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 370 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM8 8 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 371 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM9 9 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + + 372 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM10 10 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + + + + 373 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + BM15 15 ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + + + + 374 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM17 17 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM19 19 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 375 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM21 21 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 376 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 22.386,98 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 44.773,97 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on digital archives on ancient religious content + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 95.101,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts for ReTINA + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 377 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 101.788,55 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 378 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Document delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in PRODUCTION environment; second release of Prototype + for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Application of ReTINA data model and annotator to the case-study corpora + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 70.812,00 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + + + + 379 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + + + + + 387 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 6.163,05 6.163,05 + + 2 BM2 54.314,50 60.477,55 + + 3 BM3 49.812,90 110.290,45 + + 4 BM4 49.812,90 160.103,35 + + 5 BM5 49.812,90 209.916,25 + + 6 BM6 49.812,90 259.729,15 + + 7 BM7 49.812,90 309.542,05 + + 8 BM8 49.812,90 359.354,95 + + 9 BM9 49.812,90 409.167,85 + + 10 BM10 49.812,85 458.980,70 + + 13 BM13 49.812,90 508.793,60 + + 15 BM15 49.812,90 558.606,50 + + 17 BM17 49.812,90 608.419,40 + + 19 BM19 26.385,58 634.804,98 + + 21 BM21 1.479,13 636.284,11 + + + 36 WP title + Trans-National Access + 37 WP number + 11 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 388 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP11 is dedicated to the management of Trans-National Access activities, which includes: administrative effort to ensure the proper + development of the process from the call to the payment of the grants; provision of all necessary equipment for TNA grant-holders to + develop their research; coordination with the RESILIENCE TNA programme. + + Scope + ITSERR Transnational Access Programme offers physical and virtual access to the most significant tools and sources in the field of + religious studies. + This offer is unique, because it combines data of institutions participating in ITSERR, thus offering knowledge that is of high importance + not only for scholars, but also for decision makers from society and policy. The transnational access service is an answer to the need of + scholars to have direct and effective access to the objects of their research, which are preserved in different institutions. Often these collections + neither have been digitised nor can be uploaded without restricted access. + Through its Transnational Access Programme ITSERR offers support and expertise for research stays at Italian centres and libraries + that hold relevant collections for the study of religions. These institutions grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, + documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies. + The aim of ITSERR is to facilitate and foster a sophisticated and advanced TNA system to sources, resources, expertise and services for + researchers in Religious Studies and related disciplines which are available within ITSERR, ensure an efficient access workflow and a + single entry point. To provide excellence-driven access to its physical resources, ITSERR offers assistance to researchers seeking to conduct + a research visit at one of the partner facilities offering this type of access. The goal of the research visits is to grant scholars direct and + effective access to the objects of their research. This includes access to research material and instructions to effectively make use of it as well + as a work place at the facility. Furthermore, ITSERR aims at matching all successful TNA applicants with experts at the facilities who + can guide them or offer advice on the subject of study. + Moreover, to cover all disciplines involved in the study of religions in all their facets and provide the widest range of relevant materials and + expertise, ITSERR seeks to include further partners into its TNA program. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + - 120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated number of 50 users + - 108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + + Activities + A11.1 TNA Services Brainstorming: based on the deliverables existing within RESILIENCE, the Consortium brainstorms on the + best ways to provide TNA services to the ITSERR Italian Researchers ecosystem. This activity leads to the creation of the TNA + Management Plan. + + A11.2 Planning of TNA activities: A list of the resources that could be made available to the TNA users is finalised and a calendar of + the Call for Proposal publication is established. + + + + 389 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A11.3 Execution of TNA activities: The Call for proposals are published following the plan established. A Peer Review Committee is + set-up to read, qualify and select the best proposals submitted by the TNA candidates. When the candidates are selected, the TNA + administration organises all the visits for the different resources. + + A11.4 TNA activities follow-up: This activity, started with the Call for Proposal, aims at continuously collecting feedback from all + ITSERR TNA stakeholders and synchronising the TNA strategy and planning with RESILIENCE. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and manages the TNA Services to be provided within WP3 to WP10 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The access policy is formalised, published within an ITSERR TNA Management Plan and a first set of TNA calls + for proposal are implemented. + Researchers are put in the condition of knowing what RESILIENCE services are offered, what are the benefits of + accessing them, where they are accessible and following which procedure, etc. For those services requiring an + excellence-driven access mode RESILIENCE puts in place a fully operational TNA call-cycle. Such a call system, + accessible to physical and digital services already in place and running at RESILIENCE facilities, is made operational + during this project. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + -120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated + number of 50 users + -108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + -All performed over 4 calls for proposals published each semester + With respect to physical access, the RI assumes as the unit of access: + -a week for individuals and/or teams willing to access facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place + and running, since a week is an appropriate amount of time to use the material instruments of research (archives, + libraries, collections). A week is a unit of access that grants the needed acquaintance with the documents and sources + and their effective use within the research activity. In the TNA programme organised by the RESILIENCE Starting + Community, ReIReS, users usually spent two weeks at the TNA provider to develop their project. + -A month for individuals and/or teams willing to access the working groups and research teams of ITSERR in its + technical development, allowing their participation in the making of the services. + + This TNA programme strengthens particularly the RESILIENCE supply of research-enhancing services in its + physical access mode, and most importantly works as a case-study to further the RESILIENCE development of + TNA activities (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + BM1 1 quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + BM2 2 - + + + + + 390 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM5 5 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM8 8 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM13 13 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM15 15 - + + + + 391 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + BM21 21 ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM1 1 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + BM2 2 The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + + + + 392 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM2 2 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM3 3 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + BM4 4 level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + + + + 393 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM5 5 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + BM6 6 approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + + + + 394 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM7 7 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM8 8 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + BM9 9 ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + + + + 395 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM10 10 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + BM13 13 ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + + + + 396 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM15 15 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM17 17 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + + + + 397 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM19 19 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM21 21 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + + + + 398 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 6.163,05 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.314,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + First TNA Call published + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Second TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 399 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Third TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 49.812,85 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Fourth TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + + + + 400 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 26.385,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 1.479,13 + + IO Desciption + Last version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access + operations and research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + + + + + 401 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + TNA activities follow-up + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 406 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 407 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 225.784,62 225.784,62 + + 2 BM2 255.054,54 480.839,16 + + 3 BM3 293.681,45 774.520,61 + + 4 BM4 293.681,45 1.068.202,06 + + 5 BM5 255.054,54 1.323.256,60 + + 6 BM6 216.427,63 1.539.684,23 + + 7 BM7 216.427,63 1.756.111,86 + + 8 BM8 216.427,63 1.972.539,49 + + 9 BM9 216.427,63 2.188.967,12 + + 10 BM10 216.427,60 2.405.394,72 + + 13 BM13 216.427,63 2.621.822,35 + + 15 BM15 216.427,63 2.838.249,98 + + 17 BM17 271.638,34 3.109.888,32 + + 19 BM19 271.638,34 3.381.526,66 + + 21 BM21 204.662,23 3.586.188,89 + + + 36 WP title + Project and Impact Management + 37 WP number + 1 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 1 WP Duration 42 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 408 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Carlo Meghini, Director of Research, OU 1 CNR-ISTI + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + The Project Management and Impact WP is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the + project to achieve its objectives and to evaluate its impact in the short and long term. It is therefore an activity that oversees all WPs. + The activities managed by WP1 produce excellent individual results for each WP but collectively integrated within the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem and by spreading these results through various market places (e.g., SSHOC, CLARIN, DARIAH, etc.), they will + generate a chain reaction of new research data, capacities, interconnections, exploitation, etc. becoming far more than the sum of individual + WP results. + To support the work conducted by scientific and technical teams, therefore, the WP aims at: + Implementing the ITSERR governance structure, and ensuring partners’ coordinated and cooperative work; + Guaranteeing the guidance, cooperation, synergy and synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE; + Monitoring the progress of the whole project and of the single WPs and managing contingencies; + Identifying risks and implementing effective control measures; + Monitoring the quality of the deliverables produced and the respect of progress indicators; + Ensuring the respect of security measures for the deliverables produced and the services provided; + Managing the human resources involved in the project; + Implementing a communication strategy for the project and coordinating its activities within RESILIENCE; + Identifying and organising training activities for the human resources involved in the project; + Detailing the RESILIENCE socio-economic ex ante impact study for the Italian context, in terms of effective impact cases, to be + evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms. + Endorse and adapt the RESILIENCE impact measurement methodology to ITSERR to identify, evaluate and quantify the project’s + impact in the long term in its different areas of action (science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources); + Ensure ITSERR sustainability beyond the 30 months of duration of the project. + + Summary of activities + + + + 409 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Summary of activities + A1.1 Governance set-up: During this activity, the ITSERR management team will perform the following activities: + - Organisation of the Kick-off event + - Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: + - Detailed Organisation Plan (See D1.1) + - Quality Assurance Plan (See D1.2) + - Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3) + - Security Management Plan(See D1.5) + - Set-up of the entire management and governance structures of ITSERR: Board of Directors (BoD); Steering Committee; International + Advisory Board (IAB) and Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF) + - Organisation of WP Staff Trainings + - Organised the synchronisation of knowledge, resources, software and services with RESILIENCE + - Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners + - Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + - Organise the closure event and submit the final report to the Ministry + - Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + + A1.2 Monitoring: During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager will lead the management of the following activities: + - Daily team stand-up + - Weekly monitoring + - Cross-project follow-up + - Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting + - HR Monitoring + - Impact Monitoring + - Scientific coordination + - Project Management activities performed by the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders + - Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager + - Security Mgt/Monitoring activities under the responsibilities of the Security Officer + + A1.3 to A1.6 Finance & Admin Management for the different partner institutions: cover the project financial duties, administrative + aspects, Human Resources management and support of the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management. + This WP targets excellence in all domains but specifically in the recruitment as it is a key factor of success for the project. Our excellence + strategy is based on the following activity aspects: + - Candidates’ sourcing strategy for an “Excellent satisfactory capacity”: targeting partners departments providing excellence in their + research fields and pre-selection of Italian companies delivering already thousands of ICT staff in Italy; + - High competence: strict and professional qualification process mostly relying on the specialised technical support from our specialised + researchers. All profiles and skills required are described in a skills matrix shared among all recruiters. + - Professional, specialised and innovative qualification material created by our HR team with our Cluster of Competences (CC) composed + by the best researchers and technologists in the domain + - Technical interviews led by Specialised staff from the CC + - The Resource Pool (RP) has an adequate size (2 times the size of the ITSERR yearly staffing plans). + - The content of the RP (incl. CVs) is always accurate and up-to-date. + - Continuous recruitment: implemented by two approaches: 1)Continuous selection of candidates to feed a Resource Pool (RP) exceeding + ITSERR Staffing Plans (reviewed monthly, quarterly & yearly) 2) including a special recruitment strategy for unplanned situations + + A1.7 Impact Management: This activity acts as a transversal WP activity which cooperates with all other WPs to develop an impact + measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact in the long term in its different areas of action such as + science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources. This activity will produce the D1.4 Impact Analysis Report + (IAR). + + A1.8 Communication Management: based on the Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3), the communication team will create + and implement the ITSERR CDP, develop new or updated communication means like flyers, banners etc. + + + + + 410 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A1.9 Training Management: Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and + RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) + necessary to create a ITSERR training framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and + methods to support researchers in using RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + The WPs 2 to 12 are governed by WP1 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + All ITSERR activities are meant to produce key building blocks to the 50+ research services of the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem. + It is correct to state that each WP produces prototype/products and new research (meta)data within a specific area. + But to create a chain reaction of added-value, ITSERR ensures the interoperability and reusability of all data, + software and services produced within the project. + From a scientific point of view, ITSERR includes key scientists who are aware of each other’s activities, specificities + and methodologies, and have a long-standing history of cooperation, as witnessed, for instance, by the recently + launched national PhD course in religious studies. From a technical point of view, the following points apply: + - All WP Leaders meet weekly within the Steering Committee to monitor that activities are progressing as planned + and that resources usage is optimal. + - All WP software requirements are architected and designed by the same architecture team to ensure that a software + re-used existing/shared components, that a software output could be reused as an input to another system, that + systems can be interconnected among themselves but also with other stakeholders (e.g. publishers, GLAM, etc.) + - All Data requirements are modeled by the same Data Management Team to ensure ontological, semantic and + syntactic interoperability not only within RESILIENCE RI ecosystem but more generally with the majority of DH + ecosystems. + - Experience and knowledge generated within each individual WP is centralized and processed to create new + learning material such as best practices for specific research area, , toolkit user guidance, new methods for exploiting + specific research material, etc. + ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and + skills, intersected with the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have + been chosen on the basis of the scientific excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by + the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding them. The maintenance of the balance between these + elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1. This WP dedicated to project and impact management is vital to the + project because it guarantees coherence with the RESILIENCE RI and delivers the following outcomes: + ●guarantee an adequate identification, coordination and monitoring of the project resources, aims, objectives and + activities + ●ensure an interdisciplinary work within and in-between religious sciences and information sciences; + ●professional communication and dissemination from start to finish + ●guarantee the magnitude of the impact that projects contributing to the construction of an SSH-related research + infrastructure usually have on the involved institutions, the areas where they invest their funds, the societies directly + and indirectly benefiting from them, the human resources they rely on. + ●Quality of the deliverables is assured through strict quality control policies and frequent monitoring + ●Security is ensured for all deliverables and services produced for the Digital Humanities research community + ●All our staff is sufficiently trained to ensure the usage and benefit of our management and development + infrastructures. + One of the most important outcomes though, is the fact that all software and services, including the training and + documentation material, are provided professionally on the ITSERR research community and that we also provide a + service desk to all researchers in need of these products and services. + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + + + + 411 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + produce innovation in science and markets (including the labour market), thus WP1 transforms such a challenge into + the ITSERR organisational and management structures. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D1.1: Detailed Organisational Plan (DOP): The DOP is the plan completely + documenting the project management, its development and tooling, the + organisation governance (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.3), the management processes + (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.4) and also templates supporting the reporting activity. + The consortium management structure consists of a total of four entities, decision + making and advisory bodies. + ●Board of Directors (BoD) consists of the IM, the Scientific Coordinator, + RESILIENCE CEO, a Principal Investigator (PI) of UNIPA and a PI of + UNIMORE. The Board elects a Chair and oversees the ultimate decisions on all + strategic choices and issues concerning the development of ITSERR. The BoD + reviews all WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy and allowing to reach + excellence in the contract outcomes. The fact that the RESILIENCE CEO is + present on the board helps to reinforce the guidance, cooperation, synergy and + synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE. The BoD + meets bi-monthly. + ●Steering Committee: chaired by the IM and composed of the Quality Manager + (QM), the Security Officer (SO), all Team Leaders (TLs) and all WP leaders + (WPLs). This committee reviews the delivery of the WP outcomes in due time and + with the expected quality. They are the warrants of the scientific and technological + excellence produced within the WPs. They meet monthly and produce a Service + Monitoring Report (D1.5) each two months submitted to the Board. + ●International Advisory Board (IAB) consists of 9 representatives of major + international academic institutions and of major stakeholders of the project and + ensures advice and evaluation on the general strategy of the project, providing an + BM1 1 independent view on the effectiveness of the accomplishment of the objectives of + the project and on the impact of its outcome within and outside the academic field. + The IAB receives key WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy to be + assessed and debated with the objective to reach excellence in the contract + outcomes. They will meet each semester. + ●Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF): the ESFRI Stakeholders Forum is a newly + established platform, developed by ESFRI with the ambition to instigate an open + dialogue among the different European research infrastructure stakeholders, to + reinforce the position of RIs as an essential pillar of the European Research Area. + ITSERR annually hosts its stakeholders (public and private research entities, + companies, policy and decision-makers, citizens) in a similar framework, aiming at + the enhancement of networking activities, shared decision-making, knowledge and + technology transfer. One key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR + (findable, etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, + H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. + ITSERR will use Design Thinking and Agile/Scrum as core approaches as there + are in Italy a large pool of such trained experts. Scrum is well suited for its agility, + fast developments of new developments as well as evolutive maintenance for such + research-based, fast changing projects. + To respect Italian and EU accessibility directives and provide accessible services + and tools to the Italian Digital Humanities community, our teams will also endorse + usability and accessibility standards such as accessibility standards (i.e. WCAG 2.1, + ATAG, UAAG and XAG, etc.). For ensuring security-proofed development and + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + + + + 412 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + WP1.5 and WP1.6). For technical documentation, their scope and content are + specified by endorsed development standards such as Rational Unified Process + (RUP). + The European Commission PM² Methodology is the project management + methodology adopted by ITSERR. It is a lean and easy to implement methodology + suitable for any type of project as it enables project teams to manage projects + effectively and deliver solutions and benefits to their organisations and + stakeholders. + + D1.2: Quality Assessment Plan (QAP): Based on ISO 9001 quality approach + principles, a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), imposed on all WPs, will define the + quality expectations for the scope and duration of the contract. The Quality + Indicators of the QAP are always two-fold: 1) Scientific: targeting the scientific + excellence expected by the project and 2) Technical: assessing the methodological + and technical requirements that the deliverable must satisfy to be approved. The + QAP aims to ensure that all activities performed as part of the project comply with + the RESILIENCE’s policies, methodologies, WP requirements and RESILIENCE + quality governance framework. + + D1.3 Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP): The plan adapts the C&D + strategy of RESILIENCE to ITSERR, guaranteeing a sound coordination on + what, how, when and to whom is communicated to the Italian and European + targeted audiences. It covers topics such as strategy for online communication, + social media collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, conferences and workshops, + feedback management, corporate design, tools, channels, touchpoints, monitoring, + analytics and reporting. + + D1.5: Security Management Plan (SMP): The Security Management Plan will be + elaborated to define all aspects of the working practices of the project to guarantee + secure delivery. It will contain a Secure Coding/Development Guidelines aligned + with “ISO/IEC 27034 Information technology – Security techniques”, the + OWASP Developer Guide, Testing Guide and Top-10 Application Security Risks. + Adherence to these guidelines will be strictly monitored by the Security Officer + through, in example code reviews, to ensure the security and quality of the + deliverables. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report and Meeting: The contract execution progress is + presented to the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report + which includes at least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + BM2 2 D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + + + + 413 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM2 2 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM3 3 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM4 4 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + + + + 414 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM5 5 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM6 6 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + BM7 7 the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 415 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM8 8 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM9 9 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + BM10 10 description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + + + + 416 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM13 13 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM15 15 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + BM17 17 submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + + + + 417 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM19 19 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.4 Impact Analysis Report (IAR)(M30): The document reports on the metrics + and indicators of the RESILIENCE impact, the methodology chosen to identify + and measure them according to the RESILIENCE impact areas. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM21 21 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.7: Closure Report(M30): ITSERR management team will provide at the + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + + + + 418 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + the contract and their final status, as well as the financial summary on the + expenses. + The final report shall also include: + ●The Service Level measurement report. + ●Pain points and lessons learned. + ●Improvements that took place during the contract. + ●Knowledge base content and its future evolution. + ●Human resources skills / competencies and training + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + BM1 1 Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + + + + 419 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM2 2 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 420 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + BM3 3 For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + + + + 421 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Number of report not meeting the content + requirements; Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM4 4 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + + + + 422 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + BM5 5 IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + + + + 423 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM6 6 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + + + + 424 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + 425 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + BM7 7 the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + + + + 426 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + BM8 8 conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + + + + 427 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + BM9 9 KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + + + + 428 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM10 10 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + + + + 429 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + BM13 13 KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + + + + 430 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM15 15 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + + + + 431 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + BM17 17 incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + + + + 432 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM19 19 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + + + + 433 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + + 434 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + BM21 21 Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + + + + 435 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 225.784,62 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + + + 436 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report deilvered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 216.427,60 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered,WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 437 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit; ; WPs Security Audit + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 204.662,23 + + IO Desciption + Reports delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication + Manager, Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; + licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 438 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the + project; project management training; language courses + + 48 Activity title + Governance set-up + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_dal_06_in_poi.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_dal_06_in_poi.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a179a13 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_dal_06_in_poi.txt @@ -0,0 +1,10353 @@ + +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 274 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 28.028,36 28.028,36 + + 2 BM2 56.056,72 84.085,08 + + 3 BM3 110.462,52 194.547,60 + + 4 BM4 114.823,10 309.370,70 + + 5 BM5 114.823,10 424.193,80 + + 6 BM6 114.823,10 539.016,90 + + 7 BM7 114.823,10 653.840,00 + + 8 BM8 114.823,10 768.663,10 + + 9 BM9 114.823,10 883.486,20 + + 10 BM10 114.823,12 998.309,32 + + 13 BM13 114.823,10 1.113.132,42 + + 15 BM15 114.823,10 1.227.955,52 + + 17 BM17 114.823,10 1.342.778,62 + + 19 BM19 114.823,10 1.457.601,72 + + 21 BM21 85.283,78 1.542.885,50 + + + 36 WP title + REVER - REVErse Regesta + 37 WP number + 7 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 275 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + REVER is a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles (the regesta) to the + documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a regestum, by applying to + documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it takes advantage of the RESILIENCE + research infrastructure ecosystem, but it also represents a significant addition to it (and beyond). In fact, REVER is different from + existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the + contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. + + Scope and goal + Between the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, several scholars and erudites interested in the archival documents produced in the + Middle Ages tirelessly produced a large quantity of regesta (i.e. scholarly summaries of the contents of archival documents of diverse + natures). Paradoxically, the use of this scholarly literature, which bears extraordinary and unrepeatable scientific value, has fallen into + disuse without becoming obsolete: the fact that twenty-first-century scholars have become more and more accustomed to find online + significant segments of the information they look for has contributed to putting into jeopardy the immense treasure of regesta. Expert- + augmented machine learning will allow for the reconnection of the original sources to the regesta and will rescue two ‘old’ treasures (both + archival documents and the regesta themselves), thus making readily available to the scientific community the semantic density, complexity + and stratification of the regesta and pave the way to innovations. + Ecclesiastical sources are the typology of documents on which this intellectual exercise has been carried out most decisively and precisely. + For this reason, the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (an already existing collection of ecclesiastical documents from the origins of the + Latin Church to the twelfth century), represents an ideal sample dataset for applying expert-augmented machine learning to reconnect the + sources and their summaries (i.e. the regesta). + This activity requires a unique type of text summarisation algorithms that must be able to operate with different languages and with + domain-specific categories. The aim is therefore not to merely apply Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to a specific set of + texts (i.e. the regesta and the documents that they summarise): rather, the aim is to produce a new algorithm that is able to apply + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + + + + 276 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + pertaining to Religious Studies). Given that the regesta and the documents they summarise might not be already been digitised in textual + format, this activity will also take care of developing Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) tools, for translating handwritten texts into + digital text, and OCR tools for converting printed texts in a digital version. + The existing text summarisation software, based either on text extraction algorithms, or on text abstraction algorithms, or a combination + or both (such as LSA-Text-Summarisation, NAMAS, or TextRank), are meant to work in one direction only (from the full text to + the summary) and thus with a top-down approach; thanks to the coherence provided by the domain-related documents and to the + possibility of hyperlinking already existing summaries (i.e. the regesta) to the full documents, new algorithms can be developed and trained + to work in both directions, thanks to a positive feedback mechanism. In other words, it becomes capable of summarising documents in + regesta-type entries, but also of linking existing (or newly created) summaries to their sources. + The fact that regesta can be (and often are) written in a language that is different from the one of the documents they refer to adds a layer + of complexity: a form of reverse engineering based on algorithms capable of operating in different (or even encrypted) languages, like + ReFormat, is therefore required. + In addition to developing and optimising the algorithm(s), the WP develops a visualisation software for presenting the connections between + regesta and full documents, automatically hyperlinking the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their source. The software can + be operated offline or online and, for the scope of this WP, it is designed to display the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. + + Activities envisaged in the WP + A7.1 Analysis: Recognition of the use-case corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the documents they refer to) for algorithm + processing (i.e. pre-processing), production of scientific and technical requirements + + A7.2.1: Scientific preparation/IT: IT supervision and creation of guidelines for pre-processing corpora for REVER. + A7.2.2: Scientific preparation/Corpus building: supervision and corpus building on the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum for REVER. + A7.2.3: Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing: Application of guidelines for pre-processing the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + to be processed by REVER. + A7.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: coordination between IT and scientific research, and validation of the other activities in the + WP. + + A7.3: Development: development of text ranking and text summarisation algorithms for REVER, development of user interface, OCR + optimisation (where required). + + A7.4: Test: testing lifecycle on the desktop and server software (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security + testing, researchers community testing, etc.). + + A7.5: Operations: REVER desktop and server solutions go into production. Running REVER on the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum, release of the database created through REVER in RESILIENCE, and publication of REVER for the research + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, ETC + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + This WP develops an algorithm that serves as matcher from a summarised text to its original source and vice versa, + even when the summary and the full text are in different languages; the WP also develops an attached software for + the search and visualisation of results and takes care of digitising handwritten or printed documents. All prototypes + are able to work online and offline, with an accessible User Interface. Through expert-augmented machine learning, + the prototype will automatically hyperlink the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their transcribed full- + text source, matching the keywords and the most relevant elements in the summary to the extended version of the + source. This project allows: + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + + + + 277 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + allowing a wider and deeper access to fundamental sources; + 2.to make available the knowledge developed in the nineteenth century, thus preserving a repository of knowledge + that is foundational for the development of more refined research; + 3.and finally to develop in a new and innovative way the processes of machine learning/AI. + REVER strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Automatic text summarisation with machine learning is an already existing technology. However, generic text + summarisation is by definition non-specific, and does not add value to the summarised text: indeed, any summary is + specifically carried out to subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. On the other hand, the + proposed algorithm, with its capability of working both ways and of applying semantic and domain-specific + principles, does produce added value: for the full text, it produces a regestum, that is not just a summary, but a + domain-specific summary, with completely different criteria from generic text summarisation. On the other hand, + for the single regestum it provides a hyperlink to the full document to the domain-specific summary. + Starting from abstractive summarisation principles, this technology will be integrated with palaeographic and + diplomatic methodology to fuel – with a scientific and highly specialised knowledge – a machine learning process + capable of incrementing knowledge. + As a software prototype, REVER is also capable of being integrated in the wider RESILIENCE Research + Infrastructure, enlarging its field of application and its accessibility to the scholarly community at an european and + international level. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D7.1.1 Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + This whitepaper contains guidelines for corpus pre-processing is meant to provide + clear and usable instructions for researchers who wish to have their corpus + processed by REVER. The guidelines are developed according to the experience + BM5 5 developed with the case-study corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum), but + they are written to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not + corpus-specific, but rather software-specific, and can be updated throughout the + work of the WP. + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + BM13 13 This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + + + + 278 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + 1)Tools for handwritten text recognition of historical manuscripts and OCR on + digitised documents, according to the principles set by D7.1.1. + 2)an algorithm that is able to link the regesta to the documents they refer to, in an + automated way. The algorithm is tailored to the study-case, but is Open Source – + like all the other WP deliverables – and is passible for further improvement, + adaptation and optimisation. + BM13 13 3)An algorithm that performs the opposite work of the previous one. It is capable + of producing a regestum-like summary of a source text, by extracting information + in a domain-related way. It differs from text summarisation and non-specific text + extraction, since it produces a type of summary that is specifically tailored for the + study-case domain. It therefore ranks information automatically according to the + uses and needs of the scholarly community, and can be trained through machine + learning for optimising results. It is Open Source and is potentially adaptable to + other domains, beyond that of Religious Studies for which it was designed. + + D7.1.3 Whitepaper on REVER + This deliverable is a whitepaper describing REVER, i.e. the implementations of the + algorithms described in D7.1.2 with a user interface that allows browsing and + BM15 15 visualising the analysed corpus, linking existing regesta with their sources and + producing new regesta from existing sources. The deliverable is tested as a part of + activity A7.4, and the test results are used for further improvement and for + producing D7.2. + + BM17 17 - + + D7.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The training material indispensable for using REVER is the output of this + BM19 19 deliverable. It is built upon the experience obtained through testing (T.7) and + through the previous stages of development (T.1-T.6), with the help of IT experts, + testers and scholars. + + D7.3 Data publishing of new metadata on Regesta Pontificum Romanorum onto + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D7.1.3 and the documentation + written for D7.2, along with data prepared according to D.7.1.1, are combined in + the release of a browsable online version of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + through RESILIENCE. This produces a double output: on the one hand, it + provides researchers with a powerful prototype for accessing an important corpus + BM21 21 of documents (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum); on the other hand, it displays + the potentialities of REVER and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other + domains. + D7.4 Prepare REVER for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of REVER are packaged as + Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM1 1 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 279 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM2 2 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 280 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM3 3 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 281 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + BM4 4 M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + + + + 282 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM5 5 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 283 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + BM7 7 ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + + + + 284 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM8 8 For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 285 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + BM9 9 in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + + + + 286 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM10 10 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM13 13 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + + + + 287 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + + + + 288 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM17 17 ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + + + + 289 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM19 19 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + + + 290 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM21 21 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 28.028,36 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + 291 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 56.056,72 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 110.462,52 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 292 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of sources>regesta algorithm + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of regesta>sources algorithm + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.823,12 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of the SW in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 293 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.283,78 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 294 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 305 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 30.032,14 30.032,14 + + 2 BM2 60.064,27 90.096,41 + + 3 BM3 108.791,69 198.888,10 + + 4 BM4 114.282,80 313.170,90 + + 5 BM5 114.282,80 427.453,70 + + 6 BM6 114.282,80 541.736,50 + + 7 BM7 114.282,80 656.019,30 + + 8 BM8 114.282,80 770.302,10 + + 9 BM9 114.282,80 884.584,90 + + 10 BM10 114.282,77 998.867,67 + + 13 BM13 114.282,80 1.113.150,47 + + 15 BM15 114.282,80 1.227.433,27 + + 17 BM17 114.282,80 1.341.716,07 + + 19 BM19 114.282,80 1.455.998,87 + + 21 BM21 85.490,22 1.541.489,09 + + + 36 WP title + uBIQUity + 37 WP number + 8 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 306 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 9 Dipartimento di Architettura CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + In accordance with RESILIENCE’s objectives, uBIQUity intends to develop, and provide the scientific community of religious sciences + with, a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient + commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. These commentaries contain an immense patrimony of religious + scholarship and are unique sources for the study of the knowledge and readings of these two sacred texts through the centuries. Intertextual + references, whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the + sacred texts “ubiquitous”; in addition, references to existing, real-world “places of religious memory” add a further layer of significance to + uBIQUity. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the “collective + memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. Connecting exegetical works to real-world (and + sometimes shared) places allows to open a new avenue for looking at religious commentaries, further empowering the RESILIENCE + research-enhancing services. + + Scope and goal + Building upon the wealth of pre-existing resources, uBIQUity will produce a more performant software prototype for a machine-learning + search engine. It will be specifically projected to identify with a higher degree of accuracy both explicit and non-explicit quotations and + allusions to the Bible and to the Qur’ān through two huge corpora: Christian and Islamic commentaries. Expanding beyond the textual + level, it also includes the capability of linking places referred to in the texts to existing (or once-existing) places, enhancing the + understanding of the religious context. This new research prototype might develop further applications in the research of intertextual + references in different kinds of literary production. + As source material, uBIQUity includes all edited commentaries on the Bible composed from the Patristic age until the Late Byzantine + period, both in Greek and Latin; all edited classical commentaries on the Qur’ān composed in Arabic from the rise of Islam until the + 15th century. + Regarding the current state of the art, the following can be noted: + - Commentaries on the Bible: today, the only tool available to find Biblical references in patristic works is BiblIndex + (https://www.biblindex.org/en). Limits of BiblIndex: 1) it does not directly search through the texts but only relies on Biblical passages + identified as such by the editors of each work; 2) the corpus of authors is characterised by remarkable lacunae (e.g., Augustine of Hippo); + intentionally, Byzantine and middle-Latin Biblical commentaries are excluded. Differently, it is possible to search for Biblical references + through the corpora of Greek and Latin works digitised and uploaded on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Thesaurus + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + + + 307 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + been uploaded; 2) they are not specifically devised to explore the use of Biblical quotations/allusions both in a quantitative and + qualitative perspective. + - Commentaries on the Qur’ān: the only tools that allow to find Qur’ānic quotations in the Islamic classical commentaries (tafsīr) are: al- + Mawsūa al- Shāmila (https://shamela.ws/category/3 and https://old.shamela.ws/index.php/category/127); Great Tafsirs + (https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_Library.aspx?Menu=1&LanguageID=1); Altafsir + (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID= + 1); Ğāmi al-Tafāsīr 3 (https://abrenoor.ir/ar/app/abrenoor_jamitafasir3). However, they do not contain all the tafsīr literature + already edited and do not have important functions such as the possibility of cross-references among commentaries, n-grams, statistics, + morphological and semantic analysis of words. + + uBIQUity will combine and implement (with approx. 20% of increased efficacy) the already existing resources by means of licence + agreements and collaboration with potential partners (e.g., TLG, TLL, Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum) and the adoption of + detecting plagiarism softwares (e.g., iThenticate) as well as corpus query tools (e.g., AntConc, Wordsmith). In addition, it opens a new + road for context understanding by linking textual and spatial elements with religious significance. Technicians will integrate the pre- + existing models with the most advanced methods of semantic word-embedding (e.g., word3vec) according to uBIQUity’s outcomes. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A8.1: Analysis and Prototyping: Preliminary scientific and technical work: analysis and mapping of the corpora, analysis of technical + requirements and scientific needs. + + A8.2.1: Scientific Preparation/IT: verification of the technical and scientific requirements, software experimenting, acquisition of software + licences. + A8.2.2: Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran: corpus acquisition and interaction with TLG, TLL; corpus acquisition and + interaction with Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum partners. + A8.2.3: Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation: linking of places and spaces described in Qu’ranic and Biblical texts and + commentaries to existing (or once-existing) places. + + A8.3: Development: Development of a software specifically aimed at recognizing and detecting Biblical and Qur’ānic quotations and + allusions in the corpora. + + A8.4: Test: deployment and testing of two websites (Biblical and Qur’ānic commentaries) hosted by a shared platform, which will + interoperate with the same software projected to work with three different alphabets and languages (Greek, Latin, and Arabic). + + A8.5: Operations: uBIQUity goes in production. Running uBIQUity on the two corpora, release of the service in RESILIENCE- + RI.EU platform, and publication of uBIQUity for marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The WP makes available a full set of digitised commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān written in the established + chronological frame. Texts will undergo a formal revision by specialists of Greek, Latin and Arabic. Where + necessary, texts will be lemmatized and morphologically tagged. The commentaries will be indexed according to the + author’s name / work titles / century. This work will contribute to building two databases that will be made + accessible to the scientific community. Users will be able to query the databases through different access keys. Each + commentary will be accompanied by an updated bibliography. Thanks to the results of this WP, researchers will be + able to quickly and accurately identify quotations/allusions in ancient commentaries on the sacred texts of + Christianity and Islam. Furthemore, more functions will be made available in uBIQUity, such as n-grams, statistics, + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + + + + 308 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + (also visual) subsets quotations/allusions found in commentaries according to their possible variant readings. + uBIQUity strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + search&find and collaboration tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation: + There are no databases specifically dedicated to ancient commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān. Some + commentaries have never been digitised and this first step will make an outstanding literary and exegetical heritage + available for researchers’ needs. The set of annexed instruments requires a Religious Studies expertise to be properly + laid out, and the Religious Studies scholarly community remains its primary target: the set of instruments, however, + will be auxiliary to other involved research fields, such as philology, textual criticism, history, and others. + With regards to the primary target domain, namely Religious Studies, the use of a more adequate and advanced + toolkit for concordances and text analysis is capable of allowing the achievement of significantly better results + compared to now. Semantic computational analysis will produce new research acquisitions. Reconstructing with the + highest degree of accuracy the way a text or an author dialogues with other texts or authors (through direct or + indirect, implicit, quotations, allusions, imitations or re-writings) means to clearly visualise and, hence, to be able to + explore more efficiently the continuous and unavoidable dialectic between past and present, tradition and + innovation, which lies at the very basis of hermeneutics. The proposed digital prototype aims at creating a shared + research instrument that will fill the gap resulting from the lack of a standard scientific approach. Besides, identifying + the range of quotations/allusions present in a certain author’s work will help visually reconstruct their Biblical or + Qur’ānic library, i.e., the number and kind of their readings. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D8.1.1 Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + This whitepaper describes the functions of the algorithms producing concordances + list, indicating possible allusions, and carrying out citation network analysis on the + BM6 6 corpora under scrutiny. The whitepaper also details how to prepare a corpus for + processing, even in different languages and alphabets, drawing from experience + obtained by working with the Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries. + + BM7 7 - + + D8.1.2 Whitepaper on uBIQUity + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of uBIQUity, intended as a + software that runs the algorithms and the functions described in D8.1.1 on two + BM8 8 twin websites (for Bible and Qur’an) hosted by a shared platform. This deliverable + details the type of operations that can be performed on the corpora, and collects + the results of preliminary testing, serving as a basis for the training material and the + documentation to be provided for uBIQUity. + + BM9 9 - + + + + + 309 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D8.1.3 Whitepaper on the results using UBIQUITY on Bible and Qur'anic + commentaries + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to uBIQUity, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It not only describes uBIQUity’s performances in theory (as with + D8.1.2), but it also presents the results of its operation “on the field”, thus acting + not only as a prototype or a scientific demonstrator, but as a potential instrument + for producing new knowledge and opening new roads for research. + + BM17 17 - + + D8.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM19 19 uBIQUity is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + package includes use-case samples (drawn from D8.1.3), as well as templates. + + D8.3 Publishing of new Bible and Qur'anic commentaries metadata on + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D8.1.2 and the documentation + written for D8.2, along with data prepared according to D.8.1.1 guidelines, are + combined in the release of two websites (for Bible and Qu’ran, each with their + relative commentaries), hosted by a shared platform through RESILIENCE and + powered by uBIQUity. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly community + BM21 21 a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and exploring the + connections between religious texts and their commentaries; on the other hand, + this displays the potentialities of uBIQUity, setting a new standard for tools + dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also for other domains. + D8.4 Prepare uBIQUity for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of uBIQUity are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + + + + 310 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + BM2 2 ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + + + + 311 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM3 3 ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + + + + 312 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM4 4 For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + + + + 313 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM5 5 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + + + + 314 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM6 6 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 315 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM7 7 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 316 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM8 8 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM9 9 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 317 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM10 10 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 318 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + + + + 319 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + + + + 320 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM17 17 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + + + + 321 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM19 19 ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + + + + 322 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + BM21 21 ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 323 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 30.032,14 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 60.064,27 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of the Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 108.791,69 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 324 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered; Approval of second release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.282,77 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 325 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.490,22 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + + + + 326 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 336 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 27.301,64 27.301,64 + + 2 BM2 54.603,28 81.904,92 + + 3 BM3 80.419,44 162.324,36 + + 4 BM4 83.395,04 245.719,40 + + 5 BM5 83.395,04 329.114,44 + + 6 BM6 83.395,04 412.509,48 + + 7 BM7 83.395,04 495.904,52 + + 8 BM8 83.395,04 579.299,56 + + 9 BM9 83.395,04 662.694,60 + + 10 BM10 83.395,07 746.089,67 + + 13 BM13 83.395,04 829.484,71 + + 15 BM15 83.395,04 912.879,75 + + 17 BM17 83.395,04 996.274,79 + + 19 BM19 83.395,04 1.079.669,83 + + 21 BM21 66.166,42 1.145.836,25 + + + 36 WP title + TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies + 37 WP number + 9 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 337 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + + 40 WP Leader + Stefano De Martino, Full Professor, OU10 UNITO-DSS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + The work package has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and + materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally + applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains two such instruments: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: tablets from the Near East. + - ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. + + Scope and goal + The tool prototypes developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope + and application. More in particular: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: cuneiform tablets from the Near East. + This prototype is dedicated to the collection and representation of the about two millions of cuneiform tablets and bullae documenting + history and religion(s) of the Near East. They are written in cuneiform writing but in different languages, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, + Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite, Hattic, Luwian, and Ugaritic. A significant part of them features religion-specific content, but their + accessibility remains an issue for contemporary scholars. In fact, the tablets are dispersed in several museums in the world, and can often + be accessed only through hand copies and photographs. Hand copies, however, are a subjective work and can contain mistakes. + Photographs, on the other hand, can represent only with great difficulty the curved surface of the tablet. Thus, neither of these traditional + methods can be considered satisfyingly accurate. Even physical access to the document is often not a viable option, because of their fragility + and/or because of unstable political situations in the places where they are stored and preserved. EnLil aims at making cuneiform tablets + accessible in a 3D virtual representation. We aim at testing all the available instrumentation on the collection of tablets in Torino (Musei + Reali) in order ro check the most reliable and low cost equipment. Some of the 3D photo instruments are very expensive and Middle + Eastern Museums cannot support these costs. After the survey of the available instrumentation we will be able to share with the producers + the needs required by the best high resolution 3DScan for the virtual representation of any possible object with a curved surface. A test + will be made on a collection of tablets (either in Turkey or in Iraq) with a virtual reconstruction of the building where the tablesìts had + been kept (MiRAr project). In addition, we will train members of the staff of some Turkish and/or Iraqi museums. Among the other + projects of representation of the cuneiform tablets, the most advanced is the project led by the Universities of Wuerzburg, Mainz and + Dortmund whose focus is analysing the characters of cuneiform writing and putting together the pieces of fragmented documents, while we + propose to reconstruct a virtual ancient library with its content. A collaboration with the aforementioned project is on our agenda. + - ACIS – Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. This prototype aims to merge the domains of archival digitization and informative + modelling by using artificial intelligence (AI) applications to serve as a shared information collection layer for EnLil and MiRAr. + The general objective of ACIS is therefore the systematisation and optimization of documentary knowledge, making archival, + bibliographic and iconographic sources interoperable and accessible through the extraction of innovative information from multimedia + digital archives based on deep learning techniques. In principle, ACIS also makes possible a layered 3d visualisation of the artefacts + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + + + 338 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + pertaining to each object. Modification and restoration vicissitudes, collection and exhibition history, visual and literary sources are + reconstructed and analysed comprehensively, as evidence of the "life" of artworks in relation to more general instances of change, including + mentality, taste, culture, materials, meaning and ideology, and social structure. The project also integrates the "future life" of works of art, + integrating knowledge of techniques, restoration practices and preventive maintenance protocols. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A9.1: Analysis and prototyping: recognition and experimenting of 3d acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS); + analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts); layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre- + processing of source archives (where needed); layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and + made available to ACIS and then to EnLil (for tablets and sites). + + A9.2: Scientific Preparation: acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; mapping of the history of conservation for works + of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of preservation, collector and museum history (for + ACIS); validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in the following activity (A9.3). + + A9.3: Development: development of software specified in A9.1, with a prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, + sites, artefacts); development of a repository as required by A9.1; enhancement and optimisation of 3d visualisation software for each of + the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + + A9.4: Test: the acquisition system is tested; the automatic metadatation prototype is tested; the optimised visualisation prototypes for + EnLil, ACIS are tested; testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated + for improvement of the prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + + A9.5: Operation: EnLil and ACIS are implemented and run on specific use-cases; the resulting databases are published on + RESILIENCE.EU; EnLil and ACIS are prepared for publication to RIs software marketplace such as EOSC/SSHOC, + CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The aim of TAURUS is to push forward our understanding of ancient religions by allowing researchers to access + documents in a new way. + In the case of written documents, with EnLil, it provides a technology for 3D acquisition and visualisation, which is + fundamental for objects that are fragile and tri-dimensional like cuneiform tablets and bullae; in addition, it enlarges + the corpus available to researchers, laying the foundation for further discovery, and locates them in the place of + discovery. + In the case of heritage artefacts, ACIS draws information from available archives and databases on the status and the + conservational history of each artefact. As such, it serves as a data source (or as a data enricher) for EnLil (when the + artefacts are tablets, and contextualised in space); additionally, it is also usable as a self-standing service for + visualisation of the single artefact (or artefact collection). + + TAURUS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + + Motivation + TAURUS optimises effort to overcome shortages of current tools available for Religious Studies and Archaeology + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + + + 339 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + 1)With EnLil, it overcomes the difficulty of the availability of the real cuneiform tablets and bullae by means of a + 3D-capable digital library, maximising exploitability of all the available data (content of the documents, their + materiality, state of preservation, lay out, palaeography of the writing, connections among texts coming from + different ages and countries, places of discovery) + 2)With ACIS, it makes available information on the transformations that artefacts have undergone in substance and + location. Through the history of restoration, it allows researchers and users to access the stories of objects but also + of the people who have observed, loved, stole, bought, stored, restored and studied them. Another effect of ACIS is + connected to issues of restoration and preventive conservation, a complex case where it is necessary to consider the + needs of the historic buildings and their relationship with the needs of the collections. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D9.1.1 Whitepaper on EnLil + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of EnLil , intended as a + software that performs 3D virtual representation and builds a virtual ancient + BM6 6 library. Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes + EnLil in its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in + subsequent phases. + + BM7 7 - + + D9.1.2 Whitepaper on ACIS + This whitepaper focuses on reconstructing the mechanisms of ACIS and + illustrating the links between existing sources and databases. There are two steps: + BM8 8 1) the definition of a protocol for the narration of the conservative history of the + artistic heritage and 2) the connection between diagnostic techniques and + preventive maintenance + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D9.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM15 15 TAURUS is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of two + training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + + D9.3.1 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - EnLil + BM17 17 The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + + + + 340 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by EnLil itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of EnLil. + D9.3.2 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - ACIS + The database created by using ACIS on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by ACIS itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototyp for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of ACIS. + + BM19 19 - + + D9.4 Prepare the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS) for publication to + RESILIENCE marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of the TAURUS toolkit + elements are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the software + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM1 1 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 341 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM2 2 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM3 3 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 342 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM4 4 ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + + + 343 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM5 5 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 344 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + + + + 345 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM8 8 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + + + 346 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM9 9 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM10 10 ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + + + + 347 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + BM13 13 ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + + + + 348 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM15 15 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM17 17 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 349 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM19 19 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + + + + 350 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM21 21 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 27.301,64 + + IO Desciption + + + + 351 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.603,28 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on EnLil + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 80.419,44 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on ACIS + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 352 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 83.395,07 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in PRODUCTION environment; second release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + + + 353 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 66.166,42 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + + + + 354 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 361 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 22.386,98 22.386,98 + + 2 BM2 44.773,97 67.160,95 + + 3 BM3 95.101,00 162.261,95 + + 4 BM4 101.788,50 264.050,45 + + 5 BM5 101.788,50 365.838,95 + + 6 BM6 101.788,50 467.627,45 + + 7 BM7 101.788,50 569.415,95 + + 8 BM8 101.788,50 671.204,45 + + 9 BM9 101.788,50 772.992,95 + + 10 BM10 101.788,55 874.781,50 + + 13 BM13 101.788,50 976.570,00 + + 15 BM15 101.788,50 1.078.358,50 + + 17 BM17 101.788,50 1.180.147,00 + + 19 BM19 101.788,50 1.281.935,50 + + 21 BM21 70.812,00 1.352.747,50 + + +36 WP title + ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond +37 WP number + 10 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 362 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + +40 WP Leader + Andrea D'Andrea, Senior Research Fellow, OU4 UNIOR-DAAM +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + This WP aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive dedicated to + complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it uses texts from + the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. About this case-study, the WP firstly produces an analysis of the most correct procedures + for the digitization and online publication of ancient texts and manuscripts; secondly, it sets out to develop a software able to support + scholars in the research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. The procedures and the software blueprint are intended to be + applicable to a diverse spectrum of texts, even beyond the case-study under scrutiny. + + Scope and goal + Many ancient textual documents from the Nile Valley and the other neighbour regions of north-eastern Africa, and the Near East deal + with religious content. They are written in hieroglyph, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Latin, and Coptic alphabet, Meroitic hieroglyph and + cursive, old Nubian script, epigraphic South Arabian, Arabic and Ge'ez script. The used languages are Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old + Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, Arabic and Ge‘ez. The support materials of the texts are stone, clay, + papyrus, parchment, pottery, wood. Consequently, the adopted tools range from the stylus to the cisel. + The chronology of these texts ranges from the end of the 4th millennium BC, with the earliest hieroglyph inscriptions, to the 15th century + AD, with the latest Old Nubian documents (later productions in Arabic and Coptic, mainly consist of manuscripts, lay beyond the scope + of this WP and can be covered in other RESILIENCE activities). The contents of these texts are very different and varied: descriptions + of religious ceremonies, funerary texts, prayers, incantations, lists of offerings and temple personnel, etc. + A data set of a large and rich selection of these texts (in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of + South Arabian, Ge‘ez, Arabic) is still lacking and only some partial digital archives are currently available. + As far as texts on stone and other hard supports are concerned, only very partial and unsystematic programs of scanning of inscriptions + and associated structures have been undertaken in the Nile Valley area. Still very recently (2016) teams working on the implementation + of partial corpora were relying on traditional, even if digital, photographic technique (see e.g., the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by the + Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents). Other projects, although adopting more technologically advanced procedures, including the + use of laser scanning technology, were focussing on a single site and a single type of writing support, like in the case of the von Humboldt + Universität project at in the Meroitic monumental complex at Musawwarat es-Sufra or of the Münich Museum project at the Meroitic + site of Naqa. “The Picturing Religion: The Philae Temple Graffiti Project” by the Simon Fraser University is ongoing at Philae, in + Egypt and is aimed at recording all the religious graffiti characterizing the temple. Similar activities of scanning rocky facades with rock + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + + + + 363 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + The automatic textual analysis was also only very rarely attempted in the study of the inscribed documents form the Nile valley. A very + famous and precocious, but very soon abandoned example was represented by Meroitic inscriptions and took place through the digitization + of the transliterated texts. In any case, as in the case of manuscripts, no attempts were made to integrate in a single procedure the scan of + the document, the analysis of its text and the analysis of the support. + In the case of funerary contexts, although some projects were undertaken for digitising tombs in the Nile valley, like in the case of the + Saite Saqqara Tombs Project of the University of Tübingen, this was not related to the analysis of the texts associated to the tombs and + of the writing support. + The same tardiness can be remarked in adopting digital technologies not only for recording but also for analysing texts on papyrus and the + writing support itself. Moreover, also in this case only specific projects on single collections can be remarked, like in the case of the ongoing + TPOP project in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. + Even in the case of manuscripts (and other texts on soft supports, such as papyrus, parchment etc.) from the Nile Valley, only specific + and sometimes partial projects were conducted so far (see a list at Digitized Manuscript Collections - A Research Guide to Middle + Eastern Studies - Guides at Penn Libraries (upenn.edu)). So far no attempts were made to relate the scanning of the manuscripts to the + automatic identification and analysis of the text, as well as to the analysis of the writing support. Moreover, the lack of suitable portable + equipment should be lamented, as this greatly limits the possibility of recording large collections of manuscripts kept in far and remote + locations. + Even when attempts were made to conduct an automatised linguistic analysis of the texts, like, e.g. the one conducted on Sahidic Coptic + manuscripts by the University of Colorado, the textual analysis was unrelated to the implementation of a digital reproduction of the + manuscript and to the analysis of the writing support. + + ReTINA aims to create an environment that in the first place lays out and optimises common guidelines for the digitisation and digital + archiving of such a diverse array of sources, accounting for the challenges posed by the very different languages and writing support types. + Secondly, building on these guidelines, it aims to produce a blueprint and a prototype of a software tool for supporting scholars in the + research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. In the third place, it uses the guidelines, the software prototype and domain- + specific expertise to lay out specifications for hardware that can be used to acquire texts in different support even in difficult environments + (because of climatic, political, or economical reasons). + The interconnection between the merely textual element and the religious component, given by the very nature of the texts under scrutiny, + allows ReTINA to go beyond the linguistic aspect, assisting researchers with the necessary information on context, religious significance + and religious history that allow to improve the interpretation of the analysed documents. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A10.1: Analysis. This activity is focused on selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from + different times, regions, languages and supports. + + A10.2: Scientific preparation. Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing of the datasets and description of the original contexts of + relevance with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts. + + A10.3: Development. This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the + complexity of the case study. The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process. Finally, it develops + a software prototype for annotation and visualisation of the texts. + + A10.4: Test. This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3 + + A10.5: Operations. This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for + release in the RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and + scientific point of view. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + + + + 364 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + ReTINA empowers RESILIENCE RI by implementing a digital archive containing some datasets of religious + content from sites in the ancient world along the Nile Valley and its surroundings, including various languages and + cultures. Starting with a comprehensive review of the state of the art in the field of study (white paper) and using + digital datasets available to the research unit, a data model will be designed. The schema will be consistent with the + main international metadata standards, taxonomies and thesauri and will be published as Open Data and/or Linked + Open Data to encourage the spread of the principles of FAIR data and, more generally, of Open Science in this area + of study. Some mapping procedures, which will allow to carry out a data-integration among data encoded according + to different schemas, will be designed, and implemented to facilitate the integration of various datasets and + heterogenous archives. + The goal is achieved through completion of several steps, examining digital datasets already directly available to + UNIOR or through agreements in place with Italian Museums and Archives to highlight strengths and weaknesses + in the sharing and reuse of data. At the same time, other paper archives (cards, photos, texts, etc.) will be digitised + according to a data scheme developed by UNIOR. + The digital archives will be compared and integrated thanks to the semantic and syntactic interoperability guaranteed + by the adoption of international metadata. The texts, appropriately transliterated, will be able to be annotated by the + users who will also be able to visualise the support of the text in 3D and have precise information on the material + used to inscribe the subject with religious content. Different digitisations approaches and 3D technologies will be + tried to identify ways to digitally acquire these materials; the results will give important results on the best practices + to create digital resources compliant with the requisite of RESILIENCE. + + ReTINA strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + ReTINA addresses a gap in the digital description and fruition of Religious Texts in ancient and rare script and from + complex contexts by optimising a shared data model and by producing software prototype for fruition. The domain- + specific character of Religious Studies, where the linguistic significance of the texts must be linked to specific + historical, theological and cultural factors, allows to account for descriptors that go beyond the merely linguistic + level, and can lay the basis for further digitisation works. The fragmented context of the Nile Valley case-study + represents a microcosmos that can be extended to other equally (or more) fragmented contexts: ReTINA therefore + represents a prototype that, thanks to digitisation and complex visualisation, can increase knowledge and + understanding even beyond the Nile Valley. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + BM6 6 This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + + + + 365 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + BM6 6 archives on ancient religious content, and serves as a basis for the further + development of ReTINA. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 . + + D10.2: Preliminary Data-Model + This deliverable contains the schema for encoding texts and manuscripts according + BM9 9 to Open Science principles, accounting for the different supports and for the + specificities due to the religious nature of the texts. + + D10.3: Data-acquisition procedures + This deliverable validates the preliminary data-model, and completes it by + BM10 10 describing procedures to digitise texts and manuscripts and to enrich the + digitisation with 3D data, chemical and Mineralogical data etc. + + BM13 13 - + + D10.4: Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface + This deliverable consists of a prototype of ReTINA, a software prototype for + BM15 15 annotating texts and manuscripts according to the specifications of D10.3,for + archiving, and for visualising the annotated texts and the relative + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D10.5 Prepare ReTINA for publication to RESILIENCE RI marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of ReTINA are packaged + BM21 21 as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. In addition the validated guidelines + are published for re-use by the scholarly community + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 366 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM2 2 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 367 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + BM3 3 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM4 4 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 368 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM5 5 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + + + + 369 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM6 6 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM7 7 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 370 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM8 8 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 371 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM9 9 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + + 372 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM10 10 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + + + + 373 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + BM15 15 ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + + + + 374 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM17 17 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM19 19 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 375 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM21 21 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 376 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 22.386,98 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 44.773,97 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on digital archives on ancient religious content + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 95.101,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts for ReTINA + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 377 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 101.788,55 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 378 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Document delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in PRODUCTION environment; second release of Prototype + for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Application of ReTINA data model and annotator to the case-study corpora + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 70.812,00 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + + + + 379 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + + + + + 387 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 6.163,05 6.163,05 + + 2 BM2 54.314,50 60.477,55 + + 3 BM3 49.812,90 110.290,45 + + 4 BM4 49.812,90 160.103,35 + + 5 BM5 49.812,90 209.916,25 + + 6 BM6 49.812,90 259.729,15 + + 7 BM7 49.812,90 309.542,05 + + 8 BM8 49.812,90 359.354,95 + + 9 BM9 49.812,90 409.167,85 + + 10 BM10 49.812,85 458.980,70 + + 13 BM13 49.812,90 508.793,60 + + 15 BM15 49.812,90 558.606,50 + + 17 BM17 49.812,90 608.419,40 + + 19 BM19 26.385,58 634.804,98 + + 21 BM21 1.479,13 636.284,11 + + + 36 WP title + Trans-National Access + 37 WP number + 11 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 388 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP11 is dedicated to the management of Trans-National Access activities, which includes: administrative effort to ensure the proper + development of the process from the call to the payment of the grants; provision of all necessary equipment for TNA grant-holders to + develop their research; coordination with the RESILIENCE TNA programme. + + Scope + ITSERR Transnational Access Programme offers physical and virtual access to the most significant tools and sources in the field of + religious studies. + This offer is unique, because it combines data of institutions participating in ITSERR, thus offering knowledge that is of high importance + not only for scholars, but also for decision makers from society and policy. The transnational access service is an answer to the need of + scholars to have direct and effective access to the objects of their research, which are preserved in different institutions. Often these collections + neither have been digitised nor can be uploaded without restricted access. + Through its Transnational Access Programme ITSERR offers support and expertise for research stays at Italian centres and libraries + that hold relevant collections for the study of religions. These institutions grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, + documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies. + The aim of ITSERR is to facilitate and foster a sophisticated and advanced TNA system to sources, resources, expertise and services for + researchers in Religious Studies and related disciplines which are available within ITSERR, ensure an efficient access workflow and a + single entry point. To provide excellence-driven access to its physical resources, ITSERR offers assistance to researchers seeking to conduct + a research visit at one of the partner facilities offering this type of access. The goal of the research visits is to grant scholars direct and + effective access to the objects of their research. This includes access to research material and instructions to effectively make use of it as well + as a work place at the facility. Furthermore, ITSERR aims at matching all successful TNA applicants with experts at the facilities who + can guide them or offer advice on the subject of study. + Moreover, to cover all disciplines involved in the study of religions in all their facets and provide the widest range of relevant materials and + expertise, ITSERR seeks to include further partners into its TNA program. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + - 120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated number of 50 users + - 108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + + Activities + A11.1 TNA Services Brainstorming: based on the deliverables existing within RESILIENCE, the Consortium brainstorms on the + best ways to provide TNA services to the ITSERR Italian Researchers ecosystem. This activity leads to the creation of the TNA + Management Plan. + + A11.2 Planning of TNA activities: A list of the resources that could be made available to the TNA users is finalised and a calendar of + the Call for Proposal publication is established. + + + + 389 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A11.3 Execution of TNA activities: The Call for proposals are published following the plan established. A Peer Review Committee is + set-up to read, qualify and select the best proposals submitted by the TNA candidates. When the candidates are selected, the TNA + administration organises all the visits for the different resources. + + A11.4 TNA activities follow-up: This activity, started with the Call for Proposal, aims at continuously collecting feedback from all + ITSERR TNA stakeholders and synchronising the TNA strategy and planning with RESILIENCE. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and manages the TNA Services to be provided within WP3 to WP10 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The access policy is formalised, published within an ITSERR TNA Management Plan and a first set of TNA calls + for proposal are implemented. + Researchers are put in the condition of knowing what RESILIENCE services are offered, what are the benefits of + accessing them, where they are accessible and following which procedure, etc. For those services requiring an + excellence-driven access mode RESILIENCE puts in place a fully operational TNA call-cycle. Such a call system, + accessible to physical and digital services already in place and running at RESILIENCE facilities, is made operational + during this project. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + -120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated + number of 50 users + -108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + -All performed over 4 calls for proposals published each semester + With respect to physical access, the RI assumes as the unit of access: + -a week for individuals and/or teams willing to access facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place + and running, since a week is an appropriate amount of time to use the material instruments of research (archives, + libraries, collections). A week is a unit of access that grants the needed acquaintance with the documents and sources + and their effective use within the research activity. In the TNA programme organised by the RESILIENCE Starting + Community, ReIReS, users usually spent two weeks at the TNA provider to develop their project. + -A month for individuals and/or teams willing to access the working groups and research teams of ITSERR in its + technical development, allowing their participation in the making of the services. + + This TNA programme strengthens particularly the RESILIENCE supply of research-enhancing services in its + physical access mode, and most importantly works as a case-study to further the RESILIENCE development of + TNA activities (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + BM1 1 quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + BM2 2 - + + + + + 390 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM5 5 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM8 8 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM13 13 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM15 15 - + + + + 391 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + BM21 21 ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM1 1 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + BM2 2 The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + + + + 392 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM2 2 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM3 3 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + BM4 4 level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + + + + 393 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM5 5 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + BM6 6 approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + + + + 394 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM7 7 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM8 8 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + BM9 9 ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + + + + 395 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM10 10 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + BM13 13 ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + + + + 396 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM15 15 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM17 17 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + + + + 397 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM19 19 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM21 21 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + + + + 398 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 6.163,05 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.314,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + First TNA Call published + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Second TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 399 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Third TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 49.812,85 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Fourth TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + + + + 400 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 26.385,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 1.479,13 + + IO Desciption + Last version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access + operations and research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + + + + + 401 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + TNA activities follow-up + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 406 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 407 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 225.784,62 225.784,62 + + 2 BM2 255.054,54 480.839,16 + + 3 BM3 293.681,45 774.520,61 + + 4 BM4 293.681,45 1.068.202,06 + + 5 BM5 255.054,54 1.323.256,60 + + 6 BM6 216.427,63 1.539.684,23 + + 7 BM7 216.427,63 1.756.111,86 + + 8 BM8 216.427,63 1.972.539,49 + + 9 BM9 216.427,63 2.188.967,12 + + 10 BM10 216.427,60 2.405.394,72 + + 13 BM13 216.427,63 2.621.822,35 + + 15 BM15 216.427,63 2.838.249,98 + + 17 BM17 271.638,34 3.109.888,32 + + 19 BM19 271.638,34 3.381.526,66 + + 21 BM21 204.662,23 3.586.188,89 + + + 36 WP title + Project and Impact Management + 37 WP number + 1 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 1 WP Duration 42 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 408 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Carlo Meghini, Director of Research, OU 1 CNR-ISTI + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + The Project Management and Impact WP is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the + project to achieve its objectives and to evaluate its impact in the short and long term. It is therefore an activity that oversees all WPs. + The activities managed by WP1 produce excellent individual results for each WP but collectively integrated within the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem and by spreading these results through various market places (e.g., SSHOC, CLARIN, DARIAH, etc.), they will + generate a chain reaction of new research data, capacities, interconnections, exploitation, etc. becoming far more than the sum of individual + WP results. + To support the work conducted by scientific and technical teams, therefore, the WP aims at: + Implementing the ITSERR governance structure, and ensuring partners’ coordinated and cooperative work; + Guaranteeing the guidance, cooperation, synergy and synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE; + Monitoring the progress of the whole project and of the single WPs and managing contingencies; + Identifying risks and implementing effective control measures; + Monitoring the quality of the deliverables produced and the respect of progress indicators; + Ensuring the respect of security measures for the deliverables produced and the services provided; + Managing the human resources involved in the project; + Implementing a communication strategy for the project and coordinating its activities within RESILIENCE; + Identifying and organising training activities for the human resources involved in the project; + Detailing the RESILIENCE socio-economic ex ante impact study for the Italian context, in terms of effective impact cases, to be + evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms. + Endorse and adapt the RESILIENCE impact measurement methodology to ITSERR to identify, evaluate and quantify the project’s + impact in the long term in its different areas of action (science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources); + Ensure ITSERR sustainability beyond the 30 months of duration of the project. + + Summary of activities + + + + 409 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Summary of activities + A1.1 Governance set-up: During this activity, the ITSERR management team will perform the following activities: + - Organisation of the Kick-off event + - Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: + - Detailed Organisation Plan (See D1.1) + - Quality Assurance Plan (See D1.2) + - Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3) + - Security Management Plan(See D1.5) + - Set-up of the entire management and governance structures of ITSERR: Board of Directors (BoD); Steering Committee; International + Advisory Board (IAB) and Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF) + - Organisation of WP Staff Trainings + - Organised the synchronisation of knowledge, resources, software and services with RESILIENCE + - Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners + - Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + - Organise the closure event and submit the final report to the Ministry + - Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + + A1.2 Monitoring: During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager will lead the management of the following activities: + - Daily team stand-up + - Weekly monitoring + - Cross-project follow-up + - Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting + - HR Monitoring + - Impact Monitoring + - Scientific coordination + - Project Management activities performed by the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders + - Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager + - Security Mgt/Monitoring activities under the responsibilities of the Security Officer + + A1.3 to A1.6 Finance & Admin Management for the different partner institutions: cover the project financial duties, administrative + aspects, Human Resources management and support of the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management. + This WP targets excellence in all domains but specifically in the recruitment as it is a key factor of success for the project. Our excellence + strategy is based on the following activity aspects: + - Candidates’ sourcing strategy for an “Excellent satisfactory capacity”: targeting partners departments providing excellence in their + research fields and pre-selection of Italian companies delivering already thousands of ICT staff in Italy; + - High competence: strict and professional qualification process mostly relying on the specialised technical support from our specialised + researchers. All profiles and skills required are described in a skills matrix shared among all recruiters. + - Professional, specialised and innovative qualification material created by our HR team with our Cluster of Competences (CC) composed + by the best researchers and technologists in the domain + - Technical interviews led by Specialised staff from the CC + - The Resource Pool (RP) has an adequate size (2 times the size of the ITSERR yearly staffing plans). + - The content of the RP (incl. CVs) is always accurate and up-to-date. + - Continuous recruitment: implemented by two approaches: 1)Continuous selection of candidates to feed a Resource Pool (RP) exceeding + ITSERR Staffing Plans (reviewed monthly, quarterly & yearly) 2) including a special recruitment strategy for unplanned situations + + A1.7 Impact Management: This activity acts as a transversal WP activity which cooperates with all other WPs to develop an impact + measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact in the long term in its different areas of action such as + science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources. This activity will produce the D1.4 Impact Analysis Report + (IAR). + + A1.8 Communication Management: based on the Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3), the communication team will create + and implement the ITSERR CDP, develop new or updated communication means like flyers, banners etc. + + + + + 410 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A1.9 Training Management: Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and + RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) + necessary to create a ITSERR training framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and + methods to support researchers in using RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + The WPs 2 to 12 are governed by WP1 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + All ITSERR activities are meant to produce key building blocks to the 50+ research services of the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem. + It is correct to state that each WP produces prototype/products and new research (meta)data within a specific area. + But to create a chain reaction of added-value, ITSERR ensures the interoperability and reusability of all data, + software and services produced within the project. + From a scientific point of view, ITSERR includes key scientists who are aware of each other’s activities, specificities + and methodologies, and have a long-standing history of cooperation, as witnessed, for instance, by the recently + launched national PhD course in religious studies. From a technical point of view, the following points apply: + - All WP Leaders meet weekly within the Steering Committee to monitor that activities are progressing as planned + and that resources usage is optimal. + - All WP software requirements are architected and designed by the same architecture team to ensure that a software + re-used existing/shared components, that a software output could be reused as an input to another system, that + systems can be interconnected among themselves but also with other stakeholders (e.g. publishers, GLAM, etc.) + - All Data requirements are modeled by the same Data Management Team to ensure ontological, semantic and + syntactic interoperability not only within RESILIENCE RI ecosystem but more generally with the majority of DH + ecosystems. + - Experience and knowledge generated within each individual WP is centralized and processed to create new + learning material such as best practices for specific research area, , toolkit user guidance, new methods for exploiting + specific research material, etc. + ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and + skills, intersected with the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have + been chosen on the basis of the scientific excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by + the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding them. The maintenance of the balance between these + elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1. This WP dedicated to project and impact management is vital to the + project because it guarantees coherence with the RESILIENCE RI and delivers the following outcomes: + ●guarantee an adequate identification, coordination and monitoring of the project resources, aims, objectives and + activities + ●ensure an interdisciplinary work within and in-between religious sciences and information sciences; + ●professional communication and dissemination from start to finish + ●guarantee the magnitude of the impact that projects contributing to the construction of an SSH-related research + infrastructure usually have on the involved institutions, the areas where they invest their funds, the societies directly + and indirectly benefiting from them, the human resources they rely on. + ●Quality of the deliverables is assured through strict quality control policies and frequent monitoring + ●Security is ensured for all deliverables and services produced for the Digital Humanities research community + ●All our staff is sufficiently trained to ensure the usage and benefit of our management and development + infrastructures. + One of the most important outcomes though, is the fact that all software and services, including the training and + documentation material, are provided professionally on the ITSERR research community and that we also provide a + service desk to all researchers in need of these products and services. + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + + + + 411 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + produce innovation in science and markets (including the labour market), thus WP1 transforms such a challenge into + the ITSERR organisational and management structures. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D1.1: Detailed Organisational Plan (DOP): The DOP is the plan completely + documenting the project management, its development and tooling, the + organisation governance (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.3), the management processes + (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.4) and also templates supporting the reporting activity. + The consortium management structure consists of a total of four entities, decision + making and advisory bodies. + ●Board of Directors (BoD) consists of the IM, the Scientific Coordinator, + RESILIENCE CEO, a Principal Investigator (PI) of UNIPA and a PI of + UNIMORE. The Board elects a Chair and oversees the ultimate decisions on all + strategic choices and issues concerning the development of ITSERR. The BoD + reviews all WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy and allowing to reach + excellence in the contract outcomes. The fact that the RESILIENCE CEO is + present on the board helps to reinforce the guidance, cooperation, synergy and + synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE. The BoD + meets bi-monthly. + ●Steering Committee: chaired by the IM and composed of the Quality Manager + (QM), the Security Officer (SO), all Team Leaders (TLs) and all WP leaders + (WPLs). This committee reviews the delivery of the WP outcomes in due time and + with the expected quality. They are the warrants of the scientific and technological + excellence produced within the WPs. They meet monthly and produce a Service + Monitoring Report (D1.5) each two months submitted to the Board. + ●International Advisory Board (IAB) consists of 9 representatives of major + international academic institutions and of major stakeholders of the project and + ensures advice and evaluation on the general strategy of the project, providing an + BM1 1 independent view on the effectiveness of the accomplishment of the objectives of + the project and on the impact of its outcome within and outside the academic field. + The IAB receives key WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy to be + assessed and debated with the objective to reach excellence in the contract + outcomes. They will meet each semester. + ●Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF): the ESFRI Stakeholders Forum is a newly + established platform, developed by ESFRI with the ambition to instigate an open + dialogue among the different European research infrastructure stakeholders, to + reinforce the position of RIs as an essential pillar of the European Research Area. + ITSERR annually hosts its stakeholders (public and private research entities, + companies, policy and decision-makers, citizens) in a similar framework, aiming at + the enhancement of networking activities, shared decision-making, knowledge and + technology transfer. One key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR + (findable, etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, + H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. + ITSERR will use Design Thinking and Agile/Scrum as core approaches as there + are in Italy a large pool of such trained experts. Scrum is well suited for its agility, + fast developments of new developments as well as evolutive maintenance for such + research-based, fast changing projects. + To respect Italian and EU accessibility directives and provide accessible services + and tools to the Italian Digital Humanities community, our teams will also endorse + usability and accessibility standards such as accessibility standards (i.e. WCAG 2.1, + ATAG, UAAG and XAG, etc.). For ensuring security-proofed development and + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + + + + 412 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + WP1.5 and WP1.6). For technical documentation, their scope and content are + specified by endorsed development standards such as Rational Unified Process + (RUP). + The European Commission PM² Methodology is the project management + methodology adopted by ITSERR. It is a lean and easy to implement methodology + suitable for any type of project as it enables project teams to manage projects + effectively and deliver solutions and benefits to their organisations and + stakeholders. + + D1.2: Quality Assessment Plan (QAP): Based on ISO 9001 quality approach + principles, a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), imposed on all WPs, will define the + quality expectations for the scope and duration of the contract. The Quality + Indicators of the QAP are always two-fold: 1) Scientific: targeting the scientific + excellence expected by the project and 2) Technical: assessing the methodological + and technical requirements that the deliverable must satisfy to be approved. The + QAP aims to ensure that all activities performed as part of the project comply with + the RESILIENCE’s policies, methodologies, WP requirements and RESILIENCE + quality governance framework. + + D1.3 Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP): The plan adapts the C&D + strategy of RESILIENCE to ITSERR, guaranteeing a sound coordination on + what, how, when and to whom is communicated to the Italian and European + targeted audiences. It covers topics such as strategy for online communication, + social media collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, conferences and workshops, + feedback management, corporate design, tools, channels, touchpoints, monitoring, + analytics and reporting. + + D1.5: Security Management Plan (SMP): The Security Management Plan will be + elaborated to define all aspects of the working practices of the project to guarantee + secure delivery. It will contain a Secure Coding/Development Guidelines aligned + with “ISO/IEC 27034 Information technology – Security techniques”, the + OWASP Developer Guide, Testing Guide and Top-10 Application Security Risks. + Adherence to these guidelines will be strictly monitored by the Security Officer + through, in example code reviews, to ensure the security and quality of the + deliverables. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report and Meeting: The contract execution progress is + presented to the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report + which includes at least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + BM2 2 D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + + + + 413 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM2 2 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM3 3 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM4 4 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + + + + 414 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM5 5 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM6 6 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + BM7 7 the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 415 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM8 8 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM9 9 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + BM10 10 description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + + + + 416 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM13 13 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM15 15 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + BM17 17 submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + + + + 417 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM19 19 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.4 Impact Analysis Report (IAR)(M30): The document reports on the metrics + and indicators of the RESILIENCE impact, the methodology chosen to identify + and measure them according to the RESILIENCE impact areas. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM21 21 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.7: Closure Report(M30): ITSERR management team will provide at the + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + + + + 418 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + the contract and their final status, as well as the financial summary on the + expenses. + The final report shall also include: + ●The Service Level measurement report. + ●Pain points and lessons learned. + ●Improvements that took place during the contract. + ●Knowledge base content and its future evolution. + ●Human resources skills / competencies and training + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + BM1 1 Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + + + + 419 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM2 2 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 420 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + BM3 3 For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + + + + 421 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Number of report not meeting the content + requirements; Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM4 4 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + + + + 422 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + BM5 5 IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + + + + 423 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM6 6 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + + + + 424 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + 425 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + BM7 7 the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + + + + 426 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + BM8 8 conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + + + + 427 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + BM9 9 KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + + + + 428 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM10 10 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + + + + 429 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + BM13 13 KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + + + + 430 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM15 15 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + + + + 431 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + BM17 17 incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + + + + 432 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM19 19 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + + + + 433 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + + 434 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + BM21 21 Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + + + + 435 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 225.784,62 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + + + 436 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report deilvered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 216.427,60 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered,WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 437 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit; ; WPs Security Audit + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 204.662,23 + + IO Desciption + Reports delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication + Manager, Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; + licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 438 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the + project; project management training; language courses + + 48 Activity title + Governance set-up + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_dettaglii.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_dettaglii.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b7e4b1b --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_dettaglii.txt @@ -0,0 +1,20415 @@ + + + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 0,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 88.497,50 0,00 88.497,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.352.747,50 0,00 1.352.747,50 + + + + + 81 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 82 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [11 - Trans-National Access] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 124.089,09 0,00 124.089,09 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 470.568,96 0,00 470.568,96 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 41.626,06 0,00 41.626,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 636.284,11 0,00 636.284,11 + + + + + 83 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access operations and + research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 84 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [1 - Project and Impact Management] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 495.535,91 493.875,00 989.410,91 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 1.622.667,50 1.622.667,50 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 294.500,00 489.500,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 200.000,00 0,00 200.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 62.337,51 172.272,97 234.610,48 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + +Total 952.873,42 2.633.315,47 3.586.188,89 + + + + + 85 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication Manager, + Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; licenses; + hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project + management training; language courses + + + + + 86 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 744.750,00 744.750,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.020.000,02 2.020.000,02 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 97.000,00 97.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 245.157,50 245.157,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 640.500,00 640.500,00 + +Total 0,00 3.747.407,52 3.747.407,52 + + + + + 87 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 969.525,00 969.525,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.715.568,00 2.715.568,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 197.500,00 197.500,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 329.681,31 329.681,31 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 827.140,00 827.140,00 + +Total 0,00 5.039.414,31 5.039.414,31 + + + + + 88 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università di Napoli L’Orientale] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 290.625,00 0,00 290.625,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 96.066,25 0,00 96.066,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.468.441,25 0,00 1.468.441,25 + + + + + 89 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Palermo] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 2.189.000,00 0,00 2.189.000,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 6.728.341,80 0,00 6.728.341,80 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 0,00 195.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 150.000,00 0,00 150.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 704.603,69 0,00 704.603,69 + costs + +f. Training activities 803.425,68 0,00 803.425,68 + +Total 10.770.371,17 0,00 10.770.371,17 + + + + + 90 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the + table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Torino] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + + a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + + b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + technological + equipment + + c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + + d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + + e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + + f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + + Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + +Il soggetto beneficiario si dichiara a conoscenza che le variazioni richieste non possono in ogni caso superare, in termini cumulati, il limite del +15% rispetto al totale dei costi ammessi al finanziamento, fermo restando il rispetto dei limiti percentuali, ove presenti, per ciascuna tipologia + + + + + 91 / 453 + PROPOSED PAYMENT PLAN + + + Bimester Payment Amount Cumulative Payment Amount + + 1 531.756,35 € 531.756,35 € + + 2 1.018.683,36 € 1.550.439,71 € + + 3 1.610.259,88 € 3.160.699,59 € + + 4 1.681.736,49 € 4.842.436,08 € + + 5 1.633.393,55 € 6.475.829,63 € + + 6 1.594.766,64 € 8.070.596,27 € + + 7 1.594.766,64 € 9.665.362,91 € + + 8 1.594.766,64 € 11.260.129,55 € + + 9 1.594.766,64 € 12.854.896,19 € + + 10 1.624.633,05 € 14.479.529,24 € + + 13 1.574.766,64 € 16.054.295,88 € + + 15 1.574.766,64 € 17.629.062,52 € + + 17 1.629.977,35 € 19.259.039,87 € + + 19 1.576.683,57 € 20.835.723,44 € + + 21 1.335.747,06 € 22.171.470,50 € + + + + + 92 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 49.846,48 49.846,48 + + 2 BM2 99.692,95 149.539,43 + + 3 BM3 244.276,89 393.816,32 + + 4 BM4 252.998,06 646.814,38 + + 5 BM5 252.998,06 899.812,44 + + 6 BM6 252.998,06 1.152.810,50 + + 7 BM7 252.998,06 1.405.808,56 + + 8 BM8 252.998,06 1.658.806,62 + + 9 BM9 252.998,06 1.911.804,68 + + 10 BM10 252.998,06 2.164.802,74 + + 13 BM13 252.998,06 2.417.800,80 + + 15 BM15 252.998,06 2.670.798,86 + + 17 BM17 252.998,06 2.923.796,92 + + 19 BM19 223.131,60 3.146.928,52 + + 21 BM21 175.379,15 3.322.307,67 + + + 36 WP title + T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies + 37 WP number + 3 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 93 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 8 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + T-ReS is a toolkit of software specifically designed and optimised for the domain of Religious Studies, aimed at empowering researchers + with up-to-date, user-friendly and sustainable tools that take full advantage of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure ecosystem. + The toolkit includes CRITERION, a software for creating critical editions of primary sources, and GNORM, a software that allows a + more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of printed religious normative sources + through data mining techniques and providing a 3D visualisation of the analysed sources. + + Scope and goals + The toolkit for Religious Studies collects a group of software prototype tools (incl. CRITERION and GNORM) that aim at + improving the research experience of scholars, developing a technology that is applicable also to other domains, thanks to the + interdisciplinarity offered by Religious Studies, a cross-fertile domain of knowledge that links philology, theology, history, law, art-history, + linguistics, semantics, philosophy, sociology, and which collaborates with hard-science such as chemistry in the study of primary sources (eg. + analysis of inks in the manuscripts). T-ReS includes two major use cases (CRITERION and GNORM, outlined below), grouped in a + single WP in order to maximise synergy and with the aim of providing a library of reusable software components. Such a library allows to + simplify and speed up the development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi-language, multi-alphabet, multi- + onthologies solutions for the in-depth processing of voluminous corpora; additionally, the library can be applied to and draw from the other + WPs of the project. The prototype tools envisaged specifically for the T-ReS WP are: + 1. The development of CRITERION, an open-source, multi-platform, multi-language and multi-alphabet software for creating critical + editions of primary sources. It is meant primarily for religious texts, where textual criticism and editions in diverse (and often uncommon + or ancient) languages are crucial, not only for the establishment of a text and understanding its context, but also for the impact that + religious texts had and have on the life of millions of people. The current digital resources show various shortages: + - The little support for uncommon and ancient languages in software producing critical editions or, when support exists, lack of tools for + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + + + + 94 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + - Lack of room for cooperation, while (especially in Religious Studies) cross-language cooperation and re-use of research data are + quintessential to the field, and therefore crucial. + - The available software is either non-open source, or discontinued. + - The available editors for critical editions provide poor support material even in the case of non-open source editors (such as CTE). + To overcome these challenges, CRITERION is able to produce printed and/or digital editions, in an easily readable and readily easily + interoperable format, with PDF and TEI-based encoding respectively: TEI standards can be applied for the management of next- + generation standoff properties. CRITERION, being Open Source and part of an infrastructural ecosystem, is released to a user + community that can support and enhance its elements (i.e. plug-ins) through a dedicated website and users’ forum (cfr. Stack Exchange). + To achieve its purpose, CRITERION must also be able to incorporate an advanced plug-in model allowing the automatic collation of + witnesses and the production (and visualisation) of sets of variants, of manuscript groups and of relationships between manuscripts in the + form of potential stemmata, supplanting tools such as ChrysoCollate. Most importantly, CRITERION allows also to preserve and re- + use the research data that text editors collect during their work. The research data is preserved in a structured dataset that ensures + Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR principles), thus pushing forward philological research. + + 2. GNORM is a software allowing a more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of + printed religious normative sources through data mining techniques based on the word2vec model and applying standoff properties to large + corpora. GNORM is capable of visualising the results of its analysis in 3D, researchers to examine the evolution of religious normative + texts both in their textual and paratextual elements. Given that religious normative texts have their own specific internal consistency, + which is shared by different corpora, ITSERR is able to provide the perfect environment for developing a domain-oriented prototype like + GNORM. Once again, the digital shortages in the currently available tools become GNORM’s challenges: + a) While a 2D visualisation is already possible, it does not allow an easy, user-friendly interface able to show the chronological + stratification of a primary source, both in its textual and paratextual elements. + b) Optimization of already existing 3D visualisation technology for Religious Studies, where the implications of the texts under scrutiny + go well beyond their philological or literary aspects and involve significant historical, theological and juridical aspects. + With GNORM, the glosses are digitally categorised and ordered through metadata assignment obtained through machine learning, and + the properties according to which they are categorised (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.) correspond to the + axes that can be viewed in 3D visualisation (for a maximum of 3 axes). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP: + A3.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of text editors capable of producing critical editions (for CRITERION); + analysis and evaluation of source material, and analysis of suitable software tools (for GNORM); analysis of the features required by a + shared library for ITSERR software tools; formulation of scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + + A3.2: Scientific preparation, divided in: + A3.2.1: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for CRITERION. + A3.2.2: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for GNORM. + A3.2.3: evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION. + A3.2.4: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici. + A3.2.5: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Talmud Bavli. + + A3.3: Development: + For CRITERION: Optimisation/development of an editor for applying to text TEI-based standoff properties, that are stored in and + retrieved from a graph database, implementation of import/export functions for the graph database used by the editor, and integration of + an automatic collation software (e.g. CollateX or Chrysocollate) with the editor, as a plugin. + For GNORM: Optimisation of data mining algorithm for applying word embedding to the texts in the corpora; + development/optimisation of a software for automatic application of properties to the corpus; development of a 3D visualisation software + for the assigned properties. + For T-ReS in general: development of a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR and also RESILIENCE research services. + A3.4: Test: Testing of CRITERION and GNORM with the scientific community; testing of the shared library across software + developed in other WPs. + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + + + + 95 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + the CRITERION user community. Running GNORM on the collected corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, and + publication of CRITERION and GNORM for the RESILIENCE marketplace. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + 1. The first output of T-ReS is CRITERION, a software that allows users to produce both digital and/or printed + critical editions, with full representation of a multi-level critical apparatus (for variant readings, sources, intertextual + references etc). In substance, the outcome of CRITERION is a software that is able to: + 1)Annotate a text with TEI standards with standoff properties. + 2)Order the annotated properties in a graph database, and retrieve them for visualisation according to the users’ + input. + 3)Produce an automated collation of witnesses, if required by the user. + 4)Import databases of textual properties from third-party collation software (if the data model is compatible). + 5)Import databases of textual properties created by other users of CRITERION. + 6)Visualise relationships between textual properties (e.g. manuscript groups, variant readings) by retrieving + information from its graph database. + 7)Export results in XML or PDF for digital and printed editions respectively. + 8)Possibility to support the export of result with a future standard model for TEI, standoff annotation. + 2. GNORM will develop a 3D visualisation software that makes possible to visualise the chronological stratification + of the textual and paratextual elements of a source. The axes of the 3D visualisation can be chosen by the users + from an array of properties (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.). + The test case will be based on specific corpora: the Corpus Iuris Canonici and the Talmud Bavli. + 3. T-ReS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + Motivation + 1)CRITERION is one of the greatest desiderata of those fields of study whose specialisms are based upon, or at + least strongly characterised by, the production and analysis of critical texts of primary sources. Although this niche + of the market is not devoid of relevant tools, none of the latter simultaneously cover all the requirements set by + CRITERION: for instance, some completely lack the multi-layered approach (like CTE); some are not WYSIWYG + (like most LaTeX-based software); most are not optimised for non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets; some are not + optimised for non-Windows users (again, like CTE); some are not familiar with markup languages (e.g. traditional + word editors, like MS Word, LibreOffice etc.), and some are designed only for online editions). The field of + Religious Studies, where textual criticism is not only relevant per se, but is also connected with historical, theological + and juridical issues, and where connected texts are often extant in different languages and alphabets, is one of the + very few environments where a powerful prototype like CRITERION can be developed. + 2)GNORM. There is the need of a 3D Edition Visualization Technology, which will show the source in different + chronological layers, allowing the final user to visualise the evolution of hermeneutics and the stratification of the + source. Furthermore, words can become tags for all the other sources in which that specific word occurs, displaying + the various layers not only in chronological order but also according to linguistic occurrences and semantic + similarities. Such a functionality allows the data mining of large corpora: this will help scholarship in analysing + different manuscripts and early printings at the same time, with the possibility to show the (hidden) cross-references + and the mutual influences. Since religious normative texts maintain a specific internal consistency, which is shared + by different corpora within the field of Religious Studies, scholars of this domain are the most motivated to develop + a prototype like GNORM, which is bound to positively affect other domains. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + + + 96 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D3.1.1 Whitepaper on Toolkit Libraries + This whitepaper explains the reasoning and possible exploitation of the libraries + adopted by T-ReS tool, and their cross-application (implemented or envisaged) for + BM6 6 tools developed in other IT. The whitepaper also serves as guidelines for adding + new material to the library, and describes its compatibility with other software + tools, especially within RESILIENCE. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D3.1.2 Whitepaper on CRITERION + This whitepaper describes CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor for producing + digital or print-ready critical editions of sources pertaining to the field of Religious + Studies. It explains the challenges given by the high complexity of the languages + and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and how CRITERION applies the TEI + data models for encoding texts, and produces output that can be exported in a + XML or PDF format, to ensure compatibility and long-term usability (for XML) + and ease of use (for PDF). It also illustrates how the editor makes the largest + possible use of standoff properties annotations, that allow to perform nested + BM15 15 and/or multiple tagging of text portions (unlike XML). In addition, the standoff + annotator engine is added to the T-ReS toolkit library (D3.1.1). + D3.1.3 Whitepaper on GNORM + This whitepaper describes GNORM as a software for visualising the chronological + stratification of the textual and paratextual elements of a source presenting the + high complexity of the languages and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and + the related challenges. It details the corpus preparation guidelines and explains how + GNORM extracts the information from the source, annotates it as metadata, and + then visualises it for the user + + D3.1.4 Whitepaper on the results using GNORM on Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + BM17 17 to GNORM, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + + + 97 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + D3.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + CRITERION and GNORM is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in + the form of two training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE + infrastructure. + D3.3 Data publishing (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli Metadata) on + BM19 19 RESILIENCE + The database created by using GNORM on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud + Bavli corpora is published on RESILIENCE, powered by GNORM itself for + multi-layered and 3D visualisation. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly + community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and + exploring new features of normative religious texts; on the other hand, this + displays the potentialities of GNORM. + + D3.4 Prepare CRITERION and GNORM for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + The technical documentation of T-ReS library, and the technical documentation, + BM21 21 source code and binaries of CRITERION and GNORM are packaged as Open + Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM1 1 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 98 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + + + + 99 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM3 3 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + + + 100 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM4 4 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + + + + 101 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM5 5 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 102 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM7 7 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 103 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM8 8 ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 104 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM9 9 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + + + + 105 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + + + + 106 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM13 13 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 107 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM15 15 + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + + + + 108 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM17 17 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM19 19 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 109 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM21 21 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 110 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 49.846,48 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 99.692,95 + + + + + 111 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on toolkit libraries + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 244.276,89 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for CRITERION + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for GNORM + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + + + + 112 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in PRODUCTION environment; second release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in PRODUCTION environment; second release of GNORM in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 223.131,60 + + + + + 113 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 175.379,15 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: CRITERION, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.3 + + + + 114 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION, domain-specific testing of + prototype and scientific coordination and support of Analysis and Development teams; its goal is to oversee and direct the development of + CRITERION carried out in A3.2.1 and A3.3 in order to ensure that the prototype corresponds to the needs of the scientific + community. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 213.887,44 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.972,12 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 115 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/CRITERION + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in software research and prototyping for CRITERION. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 116 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Talmud Bavli, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the analysis and preparation of the Talmud Bavli corpus for GNORM; it prepares guidelines for corpus pre- + processing for GNORM, as far as the Talmud Bavli case-study is concerned; it subsequently performs the corpus building and pre- + processing for GNORM (Talmud Bavli), according to the specified guidelines; it also carries out domain-specific testing of the GNORM + prototype, with relation to the Talmud Bavli corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 117 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 3.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of developing the software required for T-ReS tools, carrying out the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design + task ensures that: + + + 118 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)CRITERION development: this task develops CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor prototype, in cooperation with the scientific + team in charge of A3.2.1. It also develops the plug-in system for CRITERION, and it produces a collation analysis plug-in. + 3)GNORM development: it develops the (meta)data extraction system for GNORM through algorithm optimisation and layout + analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of knowledge extraction + algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. It also produces the architecture of the database where + extracted properties are stored. + 4)GNORM visualisation: it develops a visualisation frontend for GNORM, to allow 3D visualisation and fruition according to users’ + needs and requirements. + 5)T-ReS, general: it develops a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, in order to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR. + All this is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.487.778,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 104.144,46 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 119 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 3.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test CRITERION and GNORM. + Although this may look as an almost final stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the + testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the + conditions of use, etc. + + Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of + CRITERION and GNORM, for the WYSIWYG editor in one case, and for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli) in the other. In addition, this activity tests the T-ReS shared library by coordinating with activities A3.3 and A3.2.1 + and with other WPs; finally, it collects feedback from users of CRITERION and GNORM prototypes, to assist in producing + documentation for the prototypes. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + + 120 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 3.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is properly run, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. + It also sets up GNORM and the databases for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli) for Continuous + Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release- + ready state. + The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. For CRITERION, it ensures that a dedicated community + forum is set up, while for T-ReS it deploys the shared library in coordination with other WPs. + Finally, it ensures that the prototypes of CRITERION and GNORM are released and published for the RESILIENCE + marketplace. + + + + 121 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 103.380,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.236,60 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 3.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 122 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary IT work for the development of T-ReS. The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic + understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. + In particular, the activity explores and evaluates text editors capable of producing critical editions for CRITERION, and evaluates + source material and suitable software tools for GNORM; it also analyses features required by a shared library for ITSERR software + tools and, elaborates prototypes for the tools; finally, it produces scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 172.500,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 136.620,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.490,67 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + + + + 123 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in algorithmic research for GNORM. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + + + + 124 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Corpus Iuris Canonici, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 8 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to: + 1) the analysis and preparation of guidelines for corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici; + 2)application of guidelines and corpus building for GNORM (Corpus iuris canonici); + 3)domain-specific supervision on the testing of the prototype with relation to the Corpus Iuris Canonici case-study. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 125 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 126 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 2.114,70 2.114,70 + + 2 BM2 113.926,37 116.041,07 + + 3 BM3 130.174,88 246.215,95 + + 4 BM4 130.174,88 376.390,83 + + 5 BM5 130.174,88 506.565,71 + + 6 BM6 130.174,88 636.740,59 + + 7 BM7 130.174,88 766.915,47 + + 8 BM8 130.174,88 897.090,35 + + 9 BM9 130.174,88 1.027.265,23 + + 10 BM10 130.174,84 1.157.440,07 + + 13 BM13 130.174,88 1.287.614,95 + + 15 BM15 130.174,88 1.417.789,83 + + 17 BM17 130.174,88 1.547.964,71 + + 19 BM19 130.174,88 1.678.139,59 + + 21 BM21 119.935,92 1.798.075,51 + + + 36 WP title + Data Centre Services + 37 WP number + 2 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 127 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + To fully serve the scientific community of Religious Studies, the most basic requirement of a RI is to provide best of breed computing + resources supported by secure and robust Data Centre services. In terms of computing resources and services, the scope of ITSERR is to + offer cost savings, scalability, high performance, economies of scale, and more. In cooperation with the RESILIENCE Data Centres + partners, CINECA and the University of Muenster, this WP will deliver IT resources and services including storage, processing power, + databases, networking, analytics and software applications over the internet. By providing these resources, ITSERR allows Italian + Religious Studies researchers to access the computational assets they need, when they need them, without needing to purchase and maintain + a physical, on-premise IT infrastructure. This provides flexible resources, faster innovation, and economies of scale. + + Like RESILIENCE, to provide Data Centre Services (DCS) ITSERR adopts the IT Infrastructure library (ITIL) 2011 approach. + ITSERR’s Operations Officer (OL) is the Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) for all DCS related matters and is supported in these + activities by the DCS operations team members. The DCS operations team will be responsible for applying ITIL-based processes and + principles when managing its activities throughout the duration of the project and during 10 years after its end. The DCS team will + interact with all WPs to organise the services and provide monthly DCS reports to the Team Leaders and the Infrastructure Manager. In + terms of services, the DCS team will participate at least to the following processes: Release and deployment management; Configuration + management; Service level management; Continuous service improvement; Availability management; Capacity management; IT service + continuity management and Access management. + + Scope and goal + The operational and security excellence of the RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure is ensured by the Data Centre (DC) Services + Operation Team and underwritten by the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE. This policy defines security and + management controls to be applied in the provision of DC services by ITSERR teams for all research projects hosted on the resilience- + ri.eu platform. This WP addresses DC security and managements aspects such as: + - Operations of development, testing and operational IT environments + - Follow-up software/hardware vulnerabilities from mainstream vulnerability databases + - Network management procedures + - Production and project services: authentication and authorisation, Access and Authentication Infrastructure (AAI) integration, asset + management, installation and configuration, data handling, vulnerability management, availability monitoring, backup configuration, + change management, user registration, etc. + - Logging and monitoring of systems’ capacity and availability, + - Laptop recommended configuration, anti-virus policy, administrator activities + - Incident/Problem Management procedure also for security events + - Backup management + - Business Continuity management: maintenance of resources for disaster recovery at any delivery location + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE supply of Data Centre Services + + Activities envisaged + A2.1 DC Services Analysis: During the first 2 months of the project, the DC Operations Team will gather the requirements in terms + of: + + + 128 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + of: + - applications hosting requirements, sizing, data and processing capacity, etc. + - project and quality management tools necessary for the follow-up of the project; + - security requirements to operate safely all ITSERR systems and data. + For all requirements gathered, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of + RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. Then DCS solutions are discussed with the various team + members and the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + + A2.2 DC Services Implementation: the DCS team orders the software licences necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services + Then the team proceeds with the installation of the solutions on the RESILIENCE Data Centre partner and starts testing the overall + service levels of the infrastructure. Here also, the security measures to be applied at infrastructural levels are set-up and put in operation. + + A2.3 DC Services Support: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP teams to + ensure a shared knowledge and the respect of the management and security services and principles. They will also assist the WP teams + during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and production). The DCS Team will be in close contact with the + RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and DCS services are used by WP1, WP3 to WP10 and WP12 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + First for all WP teams of this project, and then for the broader community of Italian DH researchers, the provision + of professional IT computing services and expertise including: + ●Authentication and Access Infrastructure services: Today users often need five to ten accounts or digital identities + in their digital research life. RESILIENCE AAI replaces different sign-in techniques for specific tools in the + RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure if there is a restriction necessary. Where agreed by existing institutions, + RESILIENCE AAI will make use of existing academic or research identities by interfacing existing systems. + ●Storage: The storage service provides initially a few PB of storage to the infrastructure projects as a technical core + service to all WPs. An easy and secure access and rights management gets implemented on top of the Resilience + AAI. + ●Hosting: The service implements Virtual Machines (VMs) per WP project so that they can move from one hosting + environment to another if a researcher wants to. This service includes for the ITSERR projects: + ○core VMs installation of Linux based stack such as LAMP. + ○The project [name] hosting is made available under [name].resilience-ri.eu. + ○the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, + change management, staff time management, etc. (See in figure WP2.1 a simplified version of the tools and their + relations within our PM and development hosting environment). + ○The WPs development, test and production environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle + management, documentation lifecycle management, etc. + ○The operation management environment including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services + availability, logging, services performance, etc. + ●Computing capacity: The computing service gives easy access to different kinds of computational resources like + shared memory systems and hadoop/spark clusters of different sizing based on the WP requirements (i.e. Machine + Learning requirements). + ●Security: Resilience as an infrastructure will be designed as a security framework in which security services are + already included such as anti-spam filters, load-balancers, request filtering (e.g. denial-of-service attacks). Due to this + approach, ITSERR reduces the efforts to be invested by each hosted research project to guarantee the security of its + project. + ●Shared knowledge: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + + + + 129 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE Data Centre Services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3). + Motivation + ITSERR intends to host a huge variety of information systems with a high impact on the Religious Studies Research + ecosystems including both EU and non-EU citizens, agencies, governments, etc. We note that for the information + systems in the scope of ITSERR, the availability, capacity and security of research data and research services is + paramount. Considering this context, we intend to design a security and service strategy embedded in Data Centre + Service delivery ensuring adherence to best of breed rules, policies and guidelines on all levels: ITSERR contract, + Work Packages, future research projects, individual researchers and citizens. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D2.1 Services Level Requirements: The Operations Leader (OL) will lead the + collection of the project services requirements from all management team + members. This information, a mandatory ITIL deliverable will be presented as + Service Level Requirements (SLR) and is an important deliverable that must be + clearly defined, documented, signed off, and understood by all project stakeholders + before the service could be delivered. Its content will cover at least the following + topics: + ●General requirements + ●Services operations requirements (e;g. deployment, infrastructure change + requests, account provisioning, etc.) + ●Requirements on the delivery of services operations (e. g. Service Level to be + provided) + ●Languages supported (i.e. for the support service desk) + ●Normal services hours (i.e. where the ITSERR team can work but also when + researchers using the RI can call the support services) + ●RI support outside of Normal services hours (i.e. On-call service, etc.) + ●Training requirements (i.e. for the ITSERR team but also for the researchers, + future users of the RI) + BM1 1 ●Security requirements + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE(M4, + M12, M24): The DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services + BM2 2 operations. They will be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + + + + 130 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + BM3 3 ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM4 4 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + + + 131 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + BM5 5 information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + BM6 6 The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + + + + 132 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM7 7 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + + + 133 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM8 8 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM9 9 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 134 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + BM10 10 ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM13 13 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + + + + 135 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + BM15 15 ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + BM17 17 ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + + + + 136 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM19 19 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + BM21 21 among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + + + + 137 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + BM1 1 ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + + + + 138 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + BM2 2 DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + + + + 139 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + BM3 3 to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + + + + 140 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + BM4 4 Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + + + + 141 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + BM5 5 obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + + + + 142 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + ll the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + BM6 6 depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + + + + 143 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + BM7 7 below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + + + + 144 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + BM8 8 copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + + + + 145 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + BM9 9 the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + + + + 146 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + BM10 10 automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + + + + 147 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + BM13 13 Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + + + + 148 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + + + + 149 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM17 17 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + + + + 150 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM19 19 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 151 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + BM21 21 All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + + + + 152 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + BM21 21 ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + + 153 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 2.114,70 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 113.926,37 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + + + 154 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 130.174,84 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + + + + 155 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 119.935,92 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 156 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + There are various investigation techniques for arriving at clearer requirements. Considering that users are often unsure about the + requirements, the support of a technical staff member is sometimes necessary. During the first months of the project, the DC Operations + Team will gather the requirements avoiding the eventual problems that can occur in collecting requirements: + ●Lack of relevance to the objectives of the service + ●Lack of clarity or ambiguity in the wording + ●Duplication between requirements + + At the end, the Service Level Requirements (See D2.1) will cover at least the following aspects: + ●ITSERR DCS plans and strategy + ●Vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the ITSERR as a Whole, and of the various WPs + ●Legislative requirements + ●Governance requirements + ●Budgeting and accounting requirements + ●Balanced scorecard + ●Service level requirements and targets + ●Service portfolio and service catalogue + ●Service review meetings + ●Customer satisfaction surveys + ●Continuous Services Improvement (CSI) initiatives already logged in the CSI register + ●Service models + + + 157 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Service models + ●Service Design Package + ●Benchmark and baseline data + ●Risk assessments and risk mitigation plans + + The Services Level Requirements document will be submitted for approval to the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders and will + be signed off before its analysis. + From the SLR accepted, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (See Deliverable + 2.2) of RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. To obtain the best services support, the ITSERR + DCS team will maintain regular contacts with the RESILIENCE DCS team during all phases of the project. + Then the DCS team starts proposing solutions in terms of software and services. These are discussed with the various team members and + the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 55.338,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.873,66 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + + + + + 158 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + DC Services Support + 49 Activity short name + 2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS team prepares documentation and training material for the WP teams to ensure a shared knowledge of the management and + security services and principles to be respected. + They will also assist the WP teams during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and set in production). + The DCS Team will be in close contact with the RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 189.819,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + + 159 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 13.287,33 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Implementation + 49 Activity short name + 2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 40 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS ITSERR team synchronises periodically with the RESILIENCE team to verify the status of the DC services and software + available on resilience-ri.eu. + From this information, the software licence necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services are ordered. + Then the DCS team proceeds with the installation of the solutions (See an example in the annexed figure WP2.1) and starts testing + their operationality. The team proceeds with the installation of the first mandatory environments including: + ●the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, change management, staff + time management, etc. + ●The WPs development environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle management, documentation lifecycle + management, etc. + ●The operation management including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services availability, logging, services performance, + etc. + + When the WPs teams will start deploying their software, a key mission of the DCS Team is to maintain operational and up-to-date the + software stack required by each WP. Among this stack is the RESILIENCE Toolkit composed of new/existing, shared and re-usable + components/services. As explained in WP3, and also in WP4 to WP10, the ITSERR Architecture and Design team will design all + WPs software solutions and will make sure that each time it is possible, an identical functionality will only be developed once and + eventually re-use existing code or software services already deployed in RESILIENCE or other RIs. During the pre-analysis of the WP + scope, the ITSERR team already identified some components that will be potentially re-used as presented in the annexed figure WP2.4. + 54 Activity budget + + + + + 160 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.435.287,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 100.470,12 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 161 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 19.224,82 19.224,82 + + 2 BM2 38.449,65 57.674,47 + + 3 BM3 38.449,65 96.124,12 + + 4 BM4 28.733,62 124.857,74 + + 5 BM5 19.017,59 143.875,33 + + 6 BM6 19.017,59 162.892,92 + + 7 BM7 19.017,59 181.910,51 + + 8 BM8 19.017,59 200.928,10 + + 9 BM9 19.017,59 219.945,69 + + 10 BM10 19.017,58 238.963,27 + + 13 BM13 19.017,59 257.980,86 + + 15 BM15 19.017,59 276.998,45 + + 17 BM17 19.017,59 296.016,04 + + 19 BM19 19.017,59 315.033,63 + + 21 BM21 19.017,59 334.051,22 + + + 36 WP title + Data Management Services + 37 WP number + 12 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 162 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP12 works toward the provision to the Research Community of Data Management Services and Reference Data Model services, while + working in full compliance with the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services. + + Scope + As a research infrastructure, ITSERR aims at the spreading of Open Science as a core part of its mission. Our mission is globally to + spread knowledge within an open, FAIR and interoperable ecosystem that is digital AND physical, while respecting environmental goals + (i.e. by favouring activities in person, by choosing zero-impact service providers for digital services, etc). Of course RI users are the only + ones accountable for the data they produce, but recourse to open standards, both in publications and other outputs (data, software etc.) will + be strongly encouraged by ITSERR wherever applicable. In addition, the implementation of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, + Reusable) compliant practices will be mandatory for all research data stored by ITSERR users/researchers. ITSERR therefore intends + to provide to the Research Community Data Management Services to: + - provide advice, guidelines, training and consultancy on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability + - encourage all its users to pursue Open Science practices by favouring i.e. open licences + - release all its publications (intended as documents produced by the consortium for the scope of the RI) in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposit them in a trusted repository + - publish all software engineered by ITSERR as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license types, and deposit + them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab) + - help applicants generating/collecting data and/or other research outputs (except for publications) by asking them to provide a maximum + half page on how the data/research outputs will be managed in line with the FAIR principles. The ITSERR team will then guide them + to the best possible implementation of the FAIR principles for their data. + + ITSERR, as a research infrastructure, does not primarily generate research data or research outputs in itself. Instead, it allows the + collection, the transformation of, and the distribution of data and metadata about research inputs/outputs. As a collector and distributor + of diverse datasets, ITSERR will interface a diversity of users: not only researchers, students or professors that are touched by the domain + of Religious Studies, but also different actors, such as the world of education, religious leaders and representatives, local or even national + political institutions, the press, and any citizen interested in developing an understanding of religions. To tackle this diversity of data, their + usage and the heterogeneity of potential users, ITSERR will deliver Reference Data Model services aiming at: + - Harmonising datasets of different provenance and with different target audiences by providing a RESILIENCE Reference Data + Model maintenance, being supported by data models and standards highly supported by the research community such as schema.org + - Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially thanks to the harmonisation + mentioned above + - Adopting for all WPs, the 4 layers EOSC interoperability framework: technical, semantic, organisational and legal + - In situations where different data licenses collide, ITSERR relies also on legal advice to tackle such issues for its users + - For research data including information about persons (e.g. from survey results, or user activities) that cannot be anonymized, ITSERR + will make sure that it is not made openly available and will be protected in accordance with GDPR + - Delivering guidance and training to researchers on data harmonisation and interoperability + - Improving the support to researchers by continuously collecting their feedback. + + + + 163 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + For its own scope, ITSERR can collect research data (e.g. in the form of surveys, services usage logs, etc.), and output can be generated in + the form, for instance, of software and/or data workflows for trainings or other activities. To this end, the ITSERR teams ensure: + - That data collected is treated according to the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" + - The findability and accessibility of all data and documents with a public status related to the design of the RI, using trusted repositories + - The adoption of Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license + In the case of data workflows, interoperable formats and standards are adopted. + + All ITSERR research and information technology outputs are deposited in git repositories and in trusted repositories (such as Zenodo) + respectively. + + The WP12 strengthens the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services (See Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3 in Annex 1). + + Activities + A12.1 Data Management Plan (DMP) creation: the Data Management Plan is a prescriptive deliverable designed to ensure that all + data hosted on the ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, accessible and reusable) and interoperable in the sense of the + EOSC interoperability framework. All activities performed here are to ensure that the DMP is aligned with RESILIENCE and + ITSERR DMP data requirements. + + A12.2 Reference Data Services: ITSERR must warranty that religious studies researchers have access to the information that they need + for their work, that the quality of the information is maintained at an acceptable level, that data models are syntactically and semantically + interoperable and that legal aspects in the areas of privacy, security, and confidentiality are warranted. A dedicated team of data + specialists works to establish RESILIENCE data management strategy, an agreement on the supportive technologies, the description of + the information management processes and the adopted data standards, data models and policies. + + A12.3 Data Services Execution: This activity is the implementation of the Data Management Strategy published and agreed upon in + A10.2. including tasks such as: + - Identify data sources. + - Identify data stewardship and ownership + - Data matching + - Data profiling + - Update the Reference Data Model, if necessary + - Advises on data interoperability + - Test the data interoperability + - Recommendations to adapt the system(s) data producers and consumers for an improved interoperability + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + All WPs + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + Provision of professional Data Management services for the Italian Religious Studies researchers. By using the + ITSERR data hosting platform, the researchers can benefit the following services: + ●Advices, guidelines and trainings material on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability, etc.; + ●Find and submit publications from the overall RESILIENCE research ecosystem in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposited in a trusted repository for long term persistence; + ●Find specialised data management software for Religious Studies as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software + Foundation license types, and deposited them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab); + ●Consultancy and expertise provision on research data management; + ●Guidance on harmonising research datasets and making them interoperable; + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + + + + 164 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + thanks to the harmonisation mentioned above; + ●Involving, where possible, citizens themselves in the production of knowledge (e.g. through surveys, interactive + seminars or educational activities, etc.). + The WP strengthens the RESILIENCE reference architecture services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM2 2 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM3 3 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM4 4 - + + + + + 165 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM5 5 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM6 6 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM7 7 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + BM8 8 ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + + + + 166 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM13 13 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + BM15 15 ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + + + + 167 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + BM21 21 data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + BM1 1 Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + + + + 168 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM1 1 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM2 2 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + BM3 3 the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 169 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM4 4 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM5 5 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + + + + 170 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM6 6 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + BM7 7 ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + + + + 171 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM8 8 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM9 9 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + BM10 10 data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + + + + 172 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM13 13 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + BM15 15 gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + + + + 173 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM17 17 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM19 19 ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + + + + 174 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM21 21 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 19.224,82 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + + + + 175 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 28.733,62 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + + + + 176 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 19.017,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + + + + 177 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Final version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Management Plan + 49 Activity short name + 12.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 6 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 178 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Management Plan (DMP) is intended to be a living document in which information can be made available on a finer level of + granularity through updates as the implementation of the project progresses and when significant changes occur. + Additionally, no single strategy can cover the integration and interoperation of the diverse datasets to be included in ITSERR: for these + reasons, the Data Management Plan is accurately designed to ensure that data that enters the ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, + accessible and reusable). + The following activities will be performed: + ●Analysis of RESILIENCE Data Management Plan + ●Collecting data services requirements on data produced and collected by the ITA WPs + ●Virtual information sessions on proper data handling with RESILIENCE Team, incl. GDPR, Open Science, FAIR principles + ●Eventual updates to RESILIENCE Data management plan + ●Presentation of RESILIENCE DMP and Q&A to all WP leaders (incl. FAIR, Open Science principles, tools, etc.) + ●Reviews and revision of RESILIENCE DMP proposed to RESILIENCE Team + ●Data Management Services (DMS) + ●Data Services Brainstorming + ●Preparation Workshops + ●ITSERR Data Management Services Analysis + ●Set-up of the ITSERR data handling and organisation + ●Set-up long term archiving and publication of core Resilience data according to Open Science and FAIR principles for ITSERR. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 54.482,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 179 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.813,77 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Reference Data Services + 49 Activity short name + 12.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + ITSERR has the objective to re-use and set-up a Reference Data Model by developing a baseline operational data model and maintain + it as a long term Reference Data Model for data managed on the RESILIENCE ecosystem. + Our Reference Data Model is build as such: + ●Collecting (Meta)Data requirements from all stakeholders + ●Building out the infrastructure to support a reference data model + ●Creation of a process for updating the model (including data governance approval) + ●Use the model content to organise and structure data hosted on RESILIENCE + ●Keep refining the model while supporting new projects on the platform. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 106.646,40 € + + + + + 180 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.465,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Services Execution + 49 Activity short name + 12.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Services Execution is the implementation of a series of artefacts(software, guidelines, training, etc) helping each work package + to implement adequately their Data Management LifeCycle (DMLC). This activity will perform the following tasks: + ●Selection and prioritisation of services to be implemented for ITSERR: based on the WP data management requirements, we’ll identify + a set of tools to be created and/or set-up to implement the DMLC + ●Architecture and design of the software components implementing the data management services to be hosted within RESILIENCE + ●Development and testing of the services + + + 181 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Development and testing of the services + ●Operation: the Data Centre Services team ensures that all artefacts produced, transformed and managed by the tools are available + 24/7, that the back-up of data is performed and that the project capacity is sufficiently sized (ie: memory, space, processing). + ●Documentation writing for RESILIENCE: this documentation becomes part of the RESILIENCE knowledge management + repository + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 151.068,60 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.574,80 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 182 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 34.819,76 34.819,76 + + 2 BM2 69.639,51 104.459,27 + + 3 BM3 148.779,46 253.238,73 + + 4 BM4 153.140,02 406.378,75 + + 5 BM5 153.140,02 559.518,77 + + 6 BM6 153.140,02 712.658,79 + + 7 BM7 153.140,02 865.798,81 + + 8 BM8 153.140,02 1.018.938,83 + + 9 BM9 153.140,02 1.172.078,85 + + 10 BM10 183.006,46 1.355.085,31 + + 13 BM13 153.140,02 1.508.225,33 + + 15 BM15 153.140,02 1.661.365,35 + + 17 BM17 153.140,02 1.814.505,37 + + 19 BM19 153.140,02 1.967.645,39 + + 21 BM21 156.233,63 2.123.879,02 + + + 36 WP title + DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum + 37 WP number + 4 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 183 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 7 Dipartimento di Ingegneria CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + DaMSym is intended as a software prototype for applying text understanding techniques to the investigation of issues on texts with a high + density of semantic information, determined by particular characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. Adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities, DaMSym benefits from an ideal case-study presented by Religious Studies, namely the translations of the Nicene- + Constantinopolitan Creed, a text with a strong dogmatic claim. DaMSym is meant to improve (and, in a virtuous circle, take advantage + from) the capabilities of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure, by bringing together cultural, historical and theological factors to + produce a new type of semantic analysis tool, capable of producing novel, domain-related knowledge, providing scholars with new insights. + + Scope and goal + The recent developments in Artificial Intelligence ensuing from the so-called connectionist turn and the development of Deep Neural + Networks have enabled new approaches to text mining and computational text analysis and understanding. In particular, the new + techniques of vector semantics and word embeddings provide new affordances for the establishment of the contextual meaning of single + words or phrases in a text. As well, recently developed Deep Neural Networks based on the fully-attentive paradigm, like BERT and + GPT-x has enabled a wide range of textual understanding and generation applications, from text classification to entity extraction and + machine translation, even in presence of a limited training set (few-shot or zero-shot settings). + The traditional study of Biblical concordances found its first computer-generated production as early as in 1957 and several search and + study systems for the Bible have been implemented since. While research on the Bible (and other sacred texts) can be pursued by improving + the implementation of tools for textual analysis, there is a type of texts relevant to Religious Studies that requires different tools and + different types of analyses. This type of texts is exemplified by the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. The Creed, along with other credal + formulas, presents a series of specific features: + - It is a “vehicular” text: its purpose is to transmit a formula of faith, with all its wide-ranging implications. + - It has a dogmatic claim: it has characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + + + 184 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + spectrum than other written texts (e.g. involving the non-literate). For the same reason, it has been translated extensively (often even + multiple times) into various languages, from the 4th century AD down to present times. + - It is relatively short, but also coherent in and of itself as well as with all its religious implications (theological, liturgical, doctrinal etc.). + - It serves (and served) a catechetical purpose. + At the same time (and for the same reasons) it can be (and often is) adapted to the target culture to a much greater degree than the sacred + texts. This means that the translated text incorporates semantic values from the target culture, while transmitting other semantic elements + from the language (or culture) of origin. + Because of these features, the aim of this WP is to develop software and algorithms for applying text understanding techniques to the + investigation of semantic textual issues, with the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a case study, adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities. The reasons for the methodological shift from conventional probabilistic methods to a machine learning approach have + already been highlighted in recent research. While in conventional probabilistic methods the choice was for topic modelling applications, a + machine learning approach envisages the use of more advanced approaches for textual understanding, ranging from the word2vec model for + word embeddings to more powerful approaches like GPT-x and BERT. Through a vector semantics approach, it is possible to achieve a + form of “computational close reading” that allows disambiguation and the detection of diachronic lexical semantic change. On the other + hand, BERT is one of the state-of-the-art models for text understanding, and allows to understand and classify text by considering an + entire sentence or an entire document, while generative approaches like GPT-3 can perform more sophisticated tasks like machine + translation between several languages, question answering and summarization even in presence of limited training data, thanks to the few- + shot abilities it exhibits. + Overall, the recent connectionist turn in Artificial Intelligence enables the direct application of computational analysis to lexical textual + phenomena and significantly enhances the effectiveness of digital interpretive and editorial practises. The critical and historical investigation + of the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into several languages provides a fitting case study in this respect. + The specific meaning of a word or phrase in a text can be inferred from the contextual analysis of the specific corpus of the author’s + writings and of coeval relevant literature. This is particularly significant for the examination of the diachronic lexical change among the + successive translations of a text: in this case study, the translations of the Creed are compared with a corpus that is contemporary to the + translation itself, and is of course in the same language as the translation. This allows the comparison of different interpretations of one + and the same textual expression, across different languages and alphabets, providing essential information for the advancement of + Religious Studies but also for other connected domains (such as philological criticism). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A4.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of digital and non-digital texts of the Creed, in original ancient languages and + in translations; analysis and recognition of word embedding tools to be adapted in later stages; formulation of scientific, user and technical + requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + + A4.2.1: Scientific preparation/general: validation of technical and scientific requirements and scientific coordination/support for other + activities in the WP. + A4.2.2: Scientific preparation/case-study: corpus-building and corpus preparation for DaMSym. + A4.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation. + A4.2.4: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, Greek and Latin texts. + A4.2.5: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, translations. + + A4.3: Development: training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding, optimisation and fine tuning of word embedding tool(s), + development of an APIs (for storing extracted properties in a graph database, for automatic standoff annotation, for machine translation, + for text classification); implementation of functions for the standoff platform, to present researchers and other users with an accessible + software prototype. + + A4.4: Test: testing of DaMSym in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation) and in its pre-release form (as a + full software protype for analysis of the Creed). Testing of DaMSym among a sample of researchers, for user and scientific feedback. + + A4.5: Operation: DaMSym goes into production. Running DaMSym on the Creed corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + + + 185 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The result of the WP is a combined software that allows to analyse and annotate corpora to understand, classify and + evaluate contextual semantics of any given text, in different languages and with special attention to uncommon and + ancient languages. This is especially useful in analysing translations of texts where semantics play a crucial role, such + as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The WP produces a prototype capable of applying word embedding on + multiple languages, operating machine translation of words, sentences and texts inside the textual corpora, + classifying and understanding text, according to the specific needs highlighted by humanities experts, executing + standoff annotation and visualising properties in a graph database. DaMSym is used in the critical case study of the + Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but can be applied to test-cases with high conceptual normativity presented by all + Humanities. + The prototype strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated + to the enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Religious Studies are characterised by text presenting a peculiar conceptual normativity, and the existing corpora + analysis tools do not allow for a full, in-depth understanding of the relationships between the text and its corpus, + and smaller and bigger corpora. Texts like the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople need to be placed in their linguistic, + cultural, chronological and theological framework to be fully interpreted semantically. This type of investigation + must make use of a vast amount of data, of diverse nature and complexity. To fully exploit the existence of such + diverse and extensive data, suitable digital tools are needed. To produce such tools a synergy between different types + of expertise can only be developed within the ecosystem of RESILIENCE, which is a domain-specific Research + Infrastructure. + The resulting prototype for textual understanding and data mining, however, can be applied even beyond the case + study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: the software developed by the WP make it possible to assess the + value as well as the semantic and cultural context of each translation, taking into account multi-disciplinary factors + (here represented by historical, theological and even liturgical elements) that are otherwise missed in purely text- + related or language-related tools. From a more technical point of view, the use of state-of-the-art neural networks + for textual understanding, specifically re-trained for the use-case, and a graph database allows a visual representation + of the words in context while resulting in a better disambiguation of word meanings which is the main point of the + research. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + + + + 186 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D4.1.1 Whitepaper on DaMSym + This whitepaper describes the reasoning and possible exploitation of DaMSym, + intended as a software that performs several functions: + 1)word embedding extraction + 2)machine translation + BM13 13 3)text classification and document understanding + 4)standoff properties annotation + 5)properties visualisation. + Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes DaMSym in + its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in subsequent + phases. + + D4.1.2 Whitepaper on the results using DaMSym on Nicene-Constantinopolitan + Creed + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to DaMSym, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating DaMSym + on the Creed corpus. As such, this deliverable not only validates DaMSym’s + prototype, but also provides researchers with new material for their studies + + BM17 17 - + + D4.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + DaMSym, and also during the preparation of D4.1.1 and D4.1.2 is systematised + BM19 19 and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a training package to be integrated + with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The package includes and use-case samples + (drawn from D4.1.2), as well as templates. + + D4.3 Data publishing (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum metadata) on + RESILIENCE + The database resulting from the application of DaMSym to the Creed corpus is + published, powered by DaMSym for browsing, consultation and user-only + annotation, through RESILIENCE. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research + acquisitions and exploring the connections between religious texts and their + BM21 21 commentaries; on the other hand, this displays the potentialities of DaMSym, + setting a new standard for tools dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also + for other domains. + + D4.4 Prepare DaMSym for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of DaMSym are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + + + + 187 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM1 1 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM2 2 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 188 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM3 3 ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + + + + 189 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM4 4 ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + + + + 190 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM5 5 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 191 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + + + + 192 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM8 8 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + + + + 193 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM9 9 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM10 10 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 194 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM13 13 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + + + + 195 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM15 15 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + + + + 196 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM17 17 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM19 19 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 197 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + + + + 198 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 34.819,76 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 69.639,51 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 148.779,46 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + + + 199 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on DaMSym; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 200 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 183.006,46 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; second release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 156.233,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 201 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 202 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 7 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the Greek and Latin texts of the Creed, to prepare them for analysis through + DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.652,28 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations + + + + 203 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the texts of the Creed in the translations defined in A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, to prepare + them for analysis through DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + + + + 204 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation; in a second stage, it oversees + the development activity (A4.3) in its realisation/adaptation of software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation, + ensuring that it remains in line with the scientific principles formulated in A4.1. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 205 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/general + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise. + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities and it validates technical and + scientific requirements, with the assistance of domain-specific experts for IT and for Religious Studies and by coordinating with other WP + activities. + It checks that software development and corpus preparation are performed in accordance with the technical and domain-specific + requirements, and it assists in updating these requirements when needed. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 206 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 27.912,56 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.641,33 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 4.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + 207 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up DaMSym and the database on the Creed for + Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always + in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for DaMSym, based on the works of A4.1-A4.4. + 2)It provides that DaMSym goes into production and that the database for the Creed powered by DaMSym is published for + RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + It provides that DaMSym’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + + + + 208 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 4.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test DaMSym. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. + The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their + problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, who + provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of DaMSym, for research on the two case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, + updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products + offered to the researchers. + In particular, DaMSym is tested first in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation), in order to assess KPIs and + assist the Development activity (A4.3), then DaMSym is tested its pre-release form (as a full software tool for analysis of the Creed), for + collecting user and scientific feedback. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,04 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 209 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 4.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity aims at finalising all the work validated by the previous phases, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this task brings different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and lead to smarter, more + sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + + + + 210 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)Training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding on the target languages, collecting training data from freely-available sources and + from the digital texts collected in A4.2 + 3)Optimisation and fine-tuning of the most performant toolkit component for word embedding on original texts, and on the translations + (at least 5 languages in 3 different non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets). + 4)Development and training of text understanding and classification tools for the digital texts collected in A4.2, on the basis of an + assessment of existing neural network architectures (e.g. GPTx-like) + 5)Development of an API that turns word embedding vector clusters into properties stored in a graph database (such as Neo4J). + 6)Development of an API for automatically annotating the vector clusters contained in the database as standoff properties in texts of the + corpus. + 7)Development of a machine translation API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 8)Development of a text classification API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 9)Implementation of functions for the standoff properties platform, in synergy with the T-ReS library, to be performed on the whole set of + different language corpora, and finalisation of DaMSym as an accessible software prototype for researchers and other users. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 800.538,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 56.037,65 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 211 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 4.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary work for the development of DaMSym. + The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This + involves consulting researchers and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the corpus of interest related to + the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, through engaging with researchers to produce a recognition of the corpus, analysing the digital and + non digital texts to be included and expressing the research issues involved. + To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this activity, for the corpus on the Creed and for + DaMSym as a software. + In parallel, digital resources for the languages involved are analysed, and tools for the required text processing functions (word embedding + extraction, properties database organisation, standoff properties platform) are explored. + This results in a formulation of technical requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 212 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/case-study + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of collecting the corpus for the Creed and its translations, ensuring that each text (or translation) of the Creed + can be compared with a sizeable corpus of literature of the same language and of the same period as each text (or translation). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 213 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 277.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 214 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 35.919,24 35.919,24 + + 2 BM2 71.838,48 107.757,72 + + 3 BM3 142.316,00 250.073,72 + + 4 BM4 186.551,53 436.625,25 + + 5 BM5 186.551,53 623.176,78 + + 6 BM6 186.551,53 809.728,31 + + 7 BM7 186.551,53 996.279,84 + + 8 BM8 186.551,53 1.182.831,37 + + 9 BM9 186.551,53 1.369.382,90 + + 10 BM10 186.551,57 1.555.934,47 + + 13 BM13 186.551,53 1.742.486,00 + + 15 BM15 186.551,53 1.929.037,53 + + 17 BM17 186.551,53 2.115.589,06 + + 19 BM19 186.551,53 2.302.140,59 + + 21 BM21 206.264,77 2.508.405,36 + + + 36 WP title + Digital Maktaba + 37 WP number + 5 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 215 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + Digital Maktaba (in Arabic "maktaba", "library": the "place where books are located", henceforth DM) is conceived as a response to + the need to create multi-alphabet digital catalogues for the management of works in non-Latin alphabets and aims to become an + instrument exportable to other realities than that of the religious sciences where it was born. + DM is an important addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem because it is intended to offer a helpful and innovative service to + libraries specialised in religious studies that need to manage cultural heritage data in non-latin alphabets. For this reason some resources + of the FSCIRE Library in Palermo constitute a rather unique and exclusive case study which includes specialised knowledge, non-latin + alphabets (e.g. Arabic) and multilingual variation in a comprehensive digital corpus of documents. From this point DM accepts the + challenge posed by non-latin alphabets in matters of data extraction, big data management and the challenge of librarianship and + cataloguing at large. + + To date, for example, the Italian National Library Service does not provide for such a possibility yet and also imposes ineffective + transliteration systems in contrast to the adjustments being made in other countries and the standards set by the International Standard + Bibliographic Description. The choice of systems to be adopted is still subject to the influence of the ideological element and the cultural and + political dimension of the choice itself. + + The aim is to establish procedures for the extraction, management of libraries and archives and to develop virtuous models in the field of + cataloguing that can accommodate texts written in non-Latin alphabets, starting with the case of the Arabic alphabet. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A5.1 Analysis. This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital + Maktaba, and setting the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + T5.1.1 Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the historical-critical, + linguistic perspective + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + + + + 216 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + - OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + - text mining techniques + - long term preservation of digital documents techniques + - big data management tools/techniques + - (interpretable) machine learning techniques + + A5.2.1 Scientific preparation/OCR: Definition of text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; + exploiting object fusion techniques based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools + A5.2.2 Scientific preparation/Extraction: Definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + exploiting multilingual resources + exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition + A5.2.3 Scientific preparation/Database Architecture: Definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the + extracted catalogue data and metadata, to be successively implemented in A5.3. + A5.2.4 Scientific preparation/Validation: Supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, + both on samples of materials found in WP1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + + A5.3 Development: this activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and + Supervised Cataloguing, performing the following tasks: + T5.3.1 design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques for interfacing + / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + - Long term preservation practices + - Big data management / distributed + T5.3.2 definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + T5.3.3 design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + T5.3.4 definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and interpretable) ML + algorithms: + - to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + - to automate publication type recognition + - to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + T5.3.5 Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in WP1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + A5.4 Test : this activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the + following tasks: + T4.1 Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + T4.2 Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + T4.3 Use case workshop + + A5.5 Operations: A web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project + Digital Maktaba is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for + publishing in RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + outcome + The aim of the WP is to ultimately create a supervised intelligent cataloguing tool prototype. Advanced search + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + + + + 217 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + information required and make searches more efficient and effective w.r.t. typical cataloguing tools. Intelligent and + AI-based techniques will also have a prominent role: intelligent assistance features will be designed and implemented + in order to bring new levels of assistance to the cataloguing process. Data entering will be supported by suggestions + derived from user feedback and previously entered data; supervised machine learning models will enable automatic + publication type recognition and provide a systematisation and classification of data according to the topographic + classification of the FSCIRE library. The design of incremental ML algorithms will ensure that the prototype can + "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use. + + DM strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + The information retrieval and text extraction fields on Arabic scripts have made huge strides in the last decades, but + there have not been many projects aimed at exploiting them for the curation of new and innovative digital libraries. + In 2009 the Alexandria library announced the creation of the Arabic Digital Library as part of the DAR project + (Digital Assets Repository), employing a sophisticated OCR system for the Arabic language. Other projects are + Arabic Collections Online (ACO), a publicly available digital library of public domain Arabic language content, and + the British Library projects, focused toward the digitization of handwritten Arabic and Persian manuscripts. All + these projects target only a part of the languages considered in DigitalMaktaba and aim at the pure digitization of a + (smaller) library of books, often with consistent manual work. + Focusing on text and metadata extraction tools available in state of the art, most of existing OCR / text acquisition + systems do not offer consistent and high quality results on all the languages we plan to consider in this project. Most + tools require manual work (batch process is not always possible), and none of them returns all the rich information + and metadata necessary to our project goal. Instead, our goal in this project is to obtain an intelligent (and + automated) system producing high quality outputs on the different languages and with a rich metadata content, + minimising the manual work required for cataloguing. + This is especially relevant since now even the smallest libraries must adapt acquisitions to the needs of culturally + heterogeneous users and are often unable to do so due to the impossibility of managing this data. Hence the urgency + of a global sharing of multicultural heritage. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + D5.1.1 Whitepaper on new algorithms + This whitepaper describes the developed algorithms for automatic text recognition, + metadata and knowledge extraction (A5.2). In particular, it details: + BM7 7 ○A prototype of algorithms for automatic text recognition. + ○A prototype of algorithms for metadata extraction. + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + + + 218 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + D5.1.2 Whitepaper on the software DIGITAL MAKTABA + This whitepaper describes the Digital Maktaba prototype, in its Data Management, + Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing features. In particular, it details: + ○A database design report + BM17 17 ○A prototype of advanced search techniques + ○A prototype of web user interface + ○A prototype of intelligent assistance ML techniques + ○A final report with description of the integrated engineered software prototype. + ○A validation of the final prototype, with a use case. + + D5.3 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + Digital Maktaba is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + BM19 19 package includes a use-case sample (drawn from D5.1.2), as well as templates. + + D5.4 Data publishing on RESILIENCE + The web portal for Digital Maktaba, with video and content to report on the + progress of the project Digital Maktaba is published on RESILIENCE. + + D5.5 Prepare DIGITAL MAKTABA for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of Digital Maktaba are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM1 1 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 219 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + + + + 220 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM3 3 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM4 4 ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + + + + 221 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM5 5 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM6 6 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 222 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM7 7 ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + + + + 223 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM8 8 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM9 9 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + + + + 224 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + + + + 225 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM13 13 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM15 15 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 226 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM17 17 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + + + 227 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM19 19 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + + + + 228 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 35.919,24 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 71.838,48 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 142.316,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis (scenario, OCR and text mining tools) + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 229 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis (OCR and text mining tools applied to DigitalMaktaba) + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 186.551,57 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 230 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST + environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 206.264,77 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + + + + 231 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/OCR + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity defines text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; it also explores exploiting object fusion + techniques, based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools, in order to maximise the efficiency of the + Development team. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 232 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, + travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Extraction + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 233 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The goal of this activity is the definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + ●Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + ●exploiting multilingual resources + ●exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 21.016,80 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 179.340,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + + + + 234 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 5.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity ensures that Digital Maktaba goes into operation and is properly set up, and that, from a data management perspective, big + data management techniques and tools are properly applied to the database for storing the extracted data and metadata. Special focus is + given to the data interchange and long-term preservation aspects, in order to allow data interchange with catalogue data from other + libraries and make the managed data readable and usable also on a long-term basis. + Finally, a web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project Digital Maktaba + is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for publishing in the + RESILIENCE marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 318.827,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 235 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 22.317,94 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 5.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the following tasks: + ●T5.4.1 [M 24-26] Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + ●T5.4.2 [M 26-28] Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + ●T5.4.3 [M 28-30] Use case workshop + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + + 236 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 5.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing, + performing the following tasks: + ●T5.3.1 [M 14-18] design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques + for interfacing / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + ○Long term preservation practices + ○Big data management / distributed + ●T5.3.2 [M16-20] definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + + + 237 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + ●T5.3.4 [M16-24] definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and + interpretable) ML algorithms: + ○to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + ○to automate publication type recognition + ○to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + ●T5.3.5 [M 25-26] Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in A5.1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + ITSERR development activity is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 829.775,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 58.084,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 238 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Validation + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, both on samples of + materials found in A5.1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 239 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 5.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital Maktaba, and setting + the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + ●T5.1.1 [M 1-6] Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the + historical-critical, linguistic perspective + ●T5.1.2 [M 1-6] Preliminary recognition of: + ○OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + ○text mining techniques + ○long term preservation of digital documents techniques + ○big data management tools/techniques + ○(interpretable) machine learning techniques + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + + + + 240 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 171.810,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.026,69 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Database Architecture + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 241 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity is tasked with the definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the extracted catalogue data + and metadata. The database, according to the specifications designed in this activity, is to be successively implemented in A5.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 151.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 242 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 50.134,56 50.134,56 + + 2 BM2 100.269,12 150.403,68 + + 3 BM3 167.994,00 318.397,68 + + 4 BM4 172.354,59 490.752,27 + + 5 BM5 172.354,59 663.106,86 + + 6 BM6 172.354,59 835.461,45 + + 7 BM7 172.354,59 1.007.816,04 + + 8 BM8 172.354,59 1.180.170,63 + + 9 BM9 172.354,59 1.352.525,22 + + 10 BM10 172.354,58 1.524.879,80 + + 13 BM13 152.354,59 1.677.234,39 + + 15 BM15 152.354,59 1.829.588,98 + + 17 BM17 152.354,59 1.981.943,57 + + 19 BM19 152.354,59 2.134.298,16 + + 21 BM21 145.022,22 2.279.320,38 + + +36 WP title + YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction +37 WP number + 6 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 243 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + +40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + YASMINE is a visual-semantic metascraper that combines semantic and mapping layers in order to extract knowledge from a specific + site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific processing. As such, + YASMINE is a significant addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem, especially as far as Search & Find research-enhancing + services are concerned: in fact it incorporates the ability of scraping and enriching visual and audio data by using Computer Vision and + Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that is converted into metadata. YASMINE is designed + for two purposes that are unique to religious studies and are described below: the Sanctuaria case-study, and the Plorabunt case-studies, + dedicated to religious shrines network and to the prayerful killed in terrorist attacks since 1982 respectively. + + Scope and goal + There are fields of research in Religious Studies whose study can be undertaken because of the existence of contemporary sources outside + traditional archival venues, but is slowed down by the lack of tools to make them available. ITSERR can assist RESILIENCE in + overcoming this by developing a prototype whose software components, using artificial intelligence, can search for data and extract + knowledge from it, and then analyse, categorise and order information related to the research topic. + The main issue is posed by the fact that the web offers a plethora of data: structured or unstructured, stored in multiple formats (i.e. texts + from XML/HTML, PDF,... Images from png, jpg, webp, etc), implemented using different technologies (static documents, dynamic + documents from CMS, API, JavaScript, etc). This heterogeneity in the web sources makes it difficult for scientists to collect, clean, + analyse, structure and organise data in ways compliant with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). + YASMINE drastically reduces the pain of finding and scraping web sources and increases the power of the scientist in creating high + quality disciplinary corpora from web sources. This will be supported by a multi-encoding, multi-lingual, multi-format and pluri-semantic + architecture to adapt the solution to the needs of the researcher. + ITSERR intends to explore two technological paths offering scientists a technical choice in terms of learning capacity, scalability, + architectural flexibility and adaptability: + YASMINE is a prototype of an open source meta-scraper with a highly modular and scalable architecture to be easily confronted to + + + + 244 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + extract very specific knowledge for various scientific projects, disciplines, etc. It will be composed of three engines: + - a semantic (structure) analyser to easily read and interpret any web data sources and create a reusable semantic layer allowing to + interpret and extract automatically the data of the web source. The semantic layer can be enriched manually by the scientist for a fine- + tuned data structure discovery and will be recorded within a semantic layer database for continuous improvement of the capacity of + YASMINE to automatically and better discover and understand any web data source. + - a data mapper: will propose the scientists with automated solutions to interpret the data discovered within the semantic layer and map + them to output data objects. This is the data mapping layer; + - a meta-scraper: supported by its multi-format, encoding, etc. capacities, using the semantic and data mapping layers to extract + knowledge from a specific site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific + processing. Semantic and data mapping layers would be part of a FAIR based repository to allow recurrent web data sources exploration + to keep the data up-to-date and share this interpretation data with the research community. + The developed metascraper, YASMINE, is then tested on two test cases, that are particularly relevant because they offer complex + research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and + read together, but which religious-historical research can no longer ignore. The two test cases, that already possess a starting database that + has been worked on, are Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, described below: + a) the case of Sanctuaria: this case study applies to the large number of shrines with religious significance and to the routes and network + that connect them. While projects addressing singular networks of sites and their connecting routes do exist, they are generally limited in + chronology and scope, and they do not integrate new knowledge extracted from the web, but limit themselves to systematising existing + knowledge. YASMINE, applied to this case study, has instead the goal of producing new knowledge about the shrines and their + connection by scraping the web for information. + b) the case of Plorabunt, a database of the prayerful killed in places of worship, worldwide, since 1982. The compilation of such a + database poses significant challenges: information ranges from the identification of the places, dates of the religious attacks, names of the + victims, names of the killers, to the storage of available digitised sources - i.e. from archives, libraries, international and local associations’ + web sites, journals, social network pages, etc. To this respect, the wealth of information available on the web, as a whole, is useless to the + researchers: the data is not ordered nor manageable in terms of scholarly investigation, and must therefore be used piecemeal. On the + contrary, appropriate web scraping and Artificial Intelligence tools for textual understanding can extract information efficiently, giving to + the researchers access to new sources, new databases and new frameworks for their activity. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A6.1: Analysis: in this activity, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts and Religious Studies researchers committed to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt test cases. + + A6.2.1: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Plorabunt: specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.2: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria: specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: On the software development side, algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping + are experimented and researched for use and optimisation within YASMINE. + A6.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: For general scientific preparation and coordination, the material experimented in A6.2.2 + and collected in A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between + A6.2.1 and A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. + + A6.3: Development: maintenance of the RESILIENCE software components library; optimisation and development of algorithms and + software for automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data, for layout analysis, for semantic structure analysis and for + data mapping; the tools are combined into YASMINE + + A6.4:Test: testing of YASMINE (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security testing, researchers community + testing, etc.), with reference to the Sanctuaria and on the Plorabunt test cases, and improved depending on feedback. + + A6.5: Operations: Creation of a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, with the expertise developed during the test + phase, released in RESILIENCE. Running YASMINE on the use case Pilgrimage, and population of the relative database; running + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + + + 245 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + marketplace. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + YASMINE, as a visual-semantic metascraper, is an unprecedented prototype that is capable of extracting specialised + information from the web, ordering it in semantic and mapping layers, and making it reusable as part of a FAIR + based repository. This allows recurrent web data sources exploration to keep the data up-to-date and share this + interpretation data with the research community. YASMINE is applied to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt case-studies. + Both attempt to architect two reusable but specialised AIs to extract specific knowledge, to use Machine Learning + methods, tools and techniques, and to perform the inception of the AI learning by “feeding” the AI with the + semantic layers discovered by YASMINE. + ITSERR intends to compare the quality of data extraction that can be achieved by pushing both technological + approaches. + Some specificities of this WP are that both projects, Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, should : + ●Support for multiple web data sources technologies/formats (XML/HTML, API, JS, etc.) + ●Support of multiple languages + ●Support of multiple alphabet/encoding + ●Support of multiple ontologies/semantics + ●Support of multiple output formats + YASMINE strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to + the search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + In itself, YASMINE produces a significant advancement as a domain-dedicated metascraper, and such advancement + is pushed by the specific requirements that are posed by the two case studies, both of great relevance for Religious + Studies. In fact, they offer complex research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual + sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and read together, but which religious-historical research + can no longer ignore. + For the Sanctuaria case, the extreme fragmentation on a regional basis of the various projects (either in progress or + concluded) highlights a potential of connections not yet investigated. Thanks to YASMINE, the case-study intends + to create a network that identifies transversal research paths: cults, architectures, sources, to be identified on the + national territory but also in its Global extensions. + With regards to the Plorabunt project, YASMINE organises and provides access to an enormous amount of data + and sources on attacks against the prayerful in places of worship. Because of the wide scope of Plorabunt and of the + difficulties in finding on the web reliable information, the use of an intelligent metascraper is pivotal for treating and + analysing such a vast data source without limiting the scope of the research. To this respect, YASMINE offers a + breakthrough technology model, which is innovative and versatile enough to find other applications even beyond + the domain of Religious Studies. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + + + + 246 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + D6.1.1 Whitepaper on YASMINE + This deliverable describes YASMINE, a metascraper that is capable of performing: + 1)Automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data + 2)Layout analysis to automatically extract texts and images + 3)Semantic mapping of web pages, adding a semantic layer that acts as a + destination language. + 4)Interpretation of the semantic layer and mapping of its elements to data objects. + The deliverable also describes the output of the scraping activity, in form of FAIR- + compliant metadata. + D6.1.2 Whitepaper on Sanctuaria datasets + BM10 10 This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Sanctuaria test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Sanctuaria test-case. + D6.1.3 Whitepaper on Plorabunt datasets + This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Plorabunt test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Plorabunt + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + D6.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The training material for YASMINE is the output of this deliverable. It is built + upon the experience obtained through testing (A6.4) and through the previous + stages of development (A6.1-A6.3), with the help of IT experts, testers and + BM19 19 scholars. Training material is also produced, for integration with the + RESILIENCE research infrastructure. Additionally, documentation and training + materials are provided for accessing the databases dedicated to the two use cases, + Sanctuaria and Plorabunt. + + BM21 21 D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + + + + 247 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + The Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets are made available through RESILIENCE. + This aims at obtaining a double result: on the one hand, it provides researchers + with two powerful databases for pushing forward their research on two relevant + topics for Religious Studies; on the other hand, it displays the potentialities of + BM21 21 YASMINE and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other domains. + D6.4 Prepare YASMINE for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of YASMINE are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + BM1 1 M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + + + + 248 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM2 2 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM3 3 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 249 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + BM4 4 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + + + + 250 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM5 5 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + + + + 251 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM6 6 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + + 252 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM7 7 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM8 8 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 253 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM9 9 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + + + + 254 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM10 10 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + + + + 255 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM13 13 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 256 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM17 17 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + + + + 257 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM19 19 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + + + + 258 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM21 21 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + 259 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 50.134,56 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 100.269,12 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on YASMINE + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 167.994,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + + + + 260 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of YASMINE in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 172.354,58 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 261 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Second release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Application of YASMINE to the two case-studies + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 145.022,22 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + 262 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 274 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 28.028,36 28.028,36 + + 2 BM2 56.056,72 84.085,08 + + 3 BM3 110.462,52 194.547,60 + + 4 BM4 114.823,10 309.370,70 + + 5 BM5 114.823,10 424.193,80 + + 6 BM6 114.823,10 539.016,90 + + 7 BM7 114.823,10 653.840,00 + + 8 BM8 114.823,10 768.663,10 + + 9 BM9 114.823,10 883.486,20 + + 10 BM10 114.823,12 998.309,32 + + 13 BM13 114.823,10 1.113.132,42 + + 15 BM15 114.823,10 1.227.955,52 + + 17 BM17 114.823,10 1.342.778,62 + + 19 BM19 114.823,10 1.457.601,72 + + 21 BM21 85.283,78 1.542.885,50 + + + 36 WP title + REVER - REVErse Regesta + 37 WP number + 7 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 275 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + REVER is a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles (the regesta) to the + documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a regestum, by applying to + documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it takes advantage of the RESILIENCE + research infrastructure ecosystem, but it also represents a significant addition to it (and beyond). In fact, REVER is different from + existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the + contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. + + Scope and goal + Between the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, several scholars and erudites interested in the archival documents produced in the + Middle Ages tirelessly produced a large quantity of regesta (i.e. scholarly summaries of the contents of archival documents of diverse + natures). Paradoxically, the use of this scholarly literature, which bears extraordinary and unrepeatable scientific value, has fallen into + disuse without becoming obsolete: the fact that twenty-first-century scholars have become more and more accustomed to find online + significant segments of the information they look for has contributed to putting into jeopardy the immense treasure of regesta. Expert- + augmented machine learning will allow for the reconnection of the original sources to the regesta and will rescue two ‘old’ treasures (both + archival documents and the regesta themselves), thus making readily available to the scientific community the semantic density, complexity + and stratification of the regesta and pave the way to innovations. + Ecclesiastical sources are the typology of documents on which this intellectual exercise has been carried out most decisively and precisely. + For this reason, the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (an already existing collection of ecclesiastical documents from the origins of the + Latin Church to the twelfth century), represents an ideal sample dataset for applying expert-augmented machine learning to reconnect the + sources and their summaries (i.e. the regesta). + This activity requires a unique type of text summarisation algorithms that must be able to operate with different languages and with + domain-specific categories. The aim is therefore not to merely apply Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to a specific set of + texts (i.e. the regesta and the documents that they summarise): rather, the aim is to produce a new algorithm that is able to apply + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + + + + 276 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + pertaining to Religious Studies). Given that the regesta and the documents they summarise might not be already been digitised in textual + format, this activity will also take care of developing Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) tools, for translating handwritten texts into + digital text, and OCR tools for converting printed texts in a digital version. + The existing text summarisation software, based either on text extraction algorithms, or on text abstraction algorithms, or a combination + or both (such as LSA-Text-Summarisation, NAMAS, or TextRank), are meant to work in one direction only (from the full text to + the summary) and thus with a top-down approach; thanks to the coherence provided by the domain-related documents and to the + possibility of hyperlinking already existing summaries (i.e. the regesta) to the full documents, new algorithms can be developed and trained + to work in both directions, thanks to a positive feedback mechanism. In other words, it becomes capable of summarising documents in + regesta-type entries, but also of linking existing (or newly created) summaries to their sources. + The fact that regesta can be (and often are) written in a language that is different from the one of the documents they refer to adds a layer + of complexity: a form of reverse engineering based on algorithms capable of operating in different (or even encrypted) languages, like + ReFormat, is therefore required. + In addition to developing and optimising the algorithm(s), the WP develops a visualisation software for presenting the connections between + regesta and full documents, automatically hyperlinking the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their source. The software can + be operated offline or online and, for the scope of this WP, it is designed to display the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. + + Activities envisaged in the WP + A7.1 Analysis: Recognition of the use-case corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the documents they refer to) for algorithm + processing (i.e. pre-processing), production of scientific and technical requirements + + A7.2.1: Scientific preparation/IT: IT supervision and creation of guidelines for pre-processing corpora for REVER. + A7.2.2: Scientific preparation/Corpus building: supervision and corpus building on the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum for REVER. + A7.2.3: Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing: Application of guidelines for pre-processing the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + to be processed by REVER. + A7.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: coordination between IT and scientific research, and validation of the other activities in the + WP. + + A7.3: Development: development of text ranking and text summarisation algorithms for REVER, development of user interface, OCR + optimisation (where required). + + A7.4: Test: testing lifecycle on the desktop and server software (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security + testing, researchers community testing, etc.). + + A7.5: Operations: REVER desktop and server solutions go into production. Running REVER on the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum, release of the database created through REVER in RESILIENCE, and publication of REVER for the research + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, ETC + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + This WP develops an algorithm that serves as matcher from a summarised text to its original source and vice versa, + even when the summary and the full text are in different languages; the WP also develops an attached software for + the search and visualisation of results and takes care of digitising handwritten or printed documents. All prototypes + are able to work online and offline, with an accessible User Interface. Through expert-augmented machine learning, + the prototype will automatically hyperlink the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their transcribed full- + text source, matching the keywords and the most relevant elements in the summary to the extended version of the + source. This project allows: + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + + + + 277 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + allowing a wider and deeper access to fundamental sources; + 2.to make available the knowledge developed in the nineteenth century, thus preserving a repository of knowledge + that is foundational for the development of more refined research; + 3.and finally to develop in a new and innovative way the processes of machine learning/AI. + REVER strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Automatic text summarisation with machine learning is an already existing technology. However, generic text + summarisation is by definition non-specific, and does not add value to the summarised text: indeed, any summary is + specifically carried out to subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. On the other hand, the + proposed algorithm, with its capability of working both ways and of applying semantic and domain-specific + principles, does produce added value: for the full text, it produces a regestum, that is not just a summary, but a + domain-specific summary, with completely different criteria from generic text summarisation. On the other hand, + for the single regestum it provides a hyperlink to the full document to the domain-specific summary. + Starting from abstractive summarisation principles, this technology will be integrated with palaeographic and + diplomatic methodology to fuel – with a scientific and highly specialised knowledge – a machine learning process + capable of incrementing knowledge. + As a software prototype, REVER is also capable of being integrated in the wider RESILIENCE Research + Infrastructure, enlarging its field of application and its accessibility to the scholarly community at an european and + international level. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D7.1.1 Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + This whitepaper contains guidelines for corpus pre-processing is meant to provide + clear and usable instructions for researchers who wish to have their corpus + processed by REVER. The guidelines are developed according to the experience + BM5 5 developed with the case-study corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum), but + they are written to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not + corpus-specific, but rather software-specific, and can be updated throughout the + work of the WP. + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + BM13 13 This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + + + + 278 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + 1)Tools for handwritten text recognition of historical manuscripts and OCR on + digitised documents, according to the principles set by D7.1.1. + 2)an algorithm that is able to link the regesta to the documents they refer to, in an + automated way. The algorithm is tailored to the study-case, but is Open Source – + like all the other WP deliverables – and is passible for further improvement, + adaptation and optimisation. + BM13 13 3)An algorithm that performs the opposite work of the previous one. It is capable + of producing a regestum-like summary of a source text, by extracting information + in a domain-related way. It differs from text summarisation and non-specific text + extraction, since it produces a type of summary that is specifically tailored for the + study-case domain. It therefore ranks information automatically according to the + uses and needs of the scholarly community, and can be trained through machine + learning for optimising results. It is Open Source and is potentially adaptable to + other domains, beyond that of Religious Studies for which it was designed. + + D7.1.3 Whitepaper on REVER + This deliverable is a whitepaper describing REVER, i.e. the implementations of the + algorithms described in D7.1.2 with a user interface that allows browsing and + BM15 15 visualising the analysed corpus, linking existing regesta with their sources and + producing new regesta from existing sources. The deliverable is tested as a part of + activity A7.4, and the test results are used for further improvement and for + producing D7.2. + + BM17 17 - + + D7.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The training material indispensable for using REVER is the output of this + BM19 19 deliverable. It is built upon the experience obtained through testing (T.7) and + through the previous stages of development (T.1-T.6), with the help of IT experts, + testers and scholars. + + D7.3 Data publishing of new metadata on Regesta Pontificum Romanorum onto + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D7.1.3 and the documentation + written for D7.2, along with data prepared according to D.7.1.1, are combined in + the release of a browsable online version of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + through RESILIENCE. This produces a double output: on the one hand, it + provides researchers with a powerful prototype for accessing an important corpus + BM21 21 of documents (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum); on the other hand, it displays + the potentialities of REVER and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other + domains. + D7.4 Prepare REVER for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of REVER are packaged as + Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM1 1 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 279 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM2 2 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 280 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM3 3 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 281 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + BM4 4 M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + + + + 282 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM5 5 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 283 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + BM7 7 ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + + + + 284 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM8 8 For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 285 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + BM9 9 in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + + + + 286 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM10 10 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM13 13 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + + + + 287 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + + + + 288 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM17 17 ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + + + + 289 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM19 19 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + + + 290 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM21 21 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 28.028,36 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + 291 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 56.056,72 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 110.462,52 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 292 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of sources>regesta algorithm + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of regesta>sources algorithm + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.823,12 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of the SW in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 293 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.283,78 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 294 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 305 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 30.032,14 30.032,14 + + 2 BM2 60.064,27 90.096,41 + + 3 BM3 108.791,69 198.888,10 + + 4 BM4 114.282,80 313.170,90 + + 5 BM5 114.282,80 427.453,70 + + 6 BM6 114.282,80 541.736,50 + + 7 BM7 114.282,80 656.019,30 + + 8 BM8 114.282,80 770.302,10 + + 9 BM9 114.282,80 884.584,90 + + 10 BM10 114.282,77 998.867,67 + + 13 BM13 114.282,80 1.113.150,47 + + 15 BM15 114.282,80 1.227.433,27 + + 17 BM17 114.282,80 1.341.716,07 + + 19 BM19 114.282,80 1.455.998,87 + + 21 BM21 85.490,22 1.541.489,09 + + + 36 WP title + uBIQUity + 37 WP number + 8 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 306 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 9 Dipartimento di Architettura CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + In accordance with RESILIENCE’s objectives, uBIQUity intends to develop, and provide the scientific community of religious sciences + with, a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient + commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. These commentaries contain an immense patrimony of religious + scholarship and are unique sources for the study of the knowledge and readings of these two sacred texts through the centuries. Intertextual + references, whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the + sacred texts “ubiquitous”; in addition, references to existing, real-world “places of religious memory” add a further layer of significance to + uBIQUity. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the “collective + memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. Connecting exegetical works to real-world (and + sometimes shared) places allows to open a new avenue for looking at religious commentaries, further empowering the RESILIENCE + research-enhancing services. + + Scope and goal + Building upon the wealth of pre-existing resources, uBIQUity will produce a more performant software prototype for a machine-learning + search engine. It will be specifically projected to identify with a higher degree of accuracy both explicit and non-explicit quotations and + allusions to the Bible and to the Qur’ān through two huge corpora: Christian and Islamic commentaries. Expanding beyond the textual + level, it also includes the capability of linking places referred to in the texts to existing (or once-existing) places, enhancing the + understanding of the religious context. This new research prototype might develop further applications in the research of intertextual + references in different kinds of literary production. + As source material, uBIQUity includes all edited commentaries on the Bible composed from the Patristic age until the Late Byzantine + period, both in Greek and Latin; all edited classical commentaries on the Qur’ān composed in Arabic from the rise of Islam until the + 15th century. + Regarding the current state of the art, the following can be noted: + - Commentaries on the Bible: today, the only tool available to find Biblical references in patristic works is BiblIndex + (https://www.biblindex.org/en). Limits of BiblIndex: 1) it does not directly search through the texts but only relies on Biblical passages + identified as such by the editors of each work; 2) the corpus of authors is characterised by remarkable lacunae (e.g., Augustine of Hippo); + intentionally, Byzantine and middle-Latin Biblical commentaries are excluded. Differently, it is possible to search for Biblical references + through the corpora of Greek and Latin works digitised and uploaded on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Thesaurus + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + + + 307 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + been uploaded; 2) they are not specifically devised to explore the use of Biblical quotations/allusions both in a quantitative and + qualitative perspective. + - Commentaries on the Qur’ān: the only tools that allow to find Qur’ānic quotations in the Islamic classical commentaries (tafsīr) are: al- + Mawsūa al- Shāmila (https://shamela.ws/category/3 and https://old.shamela.ws/index.php/category/127); Great Tafsirs + (https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_Library.aspx?Menu=1&LanguageID=1); Altafsir + (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID= + 1); Ğāmi al-Tafāsīr 3 (https://abrenoor.ir/ar/app/abrenoor_jamitafasir3). However, they do not contain all the tafsīr literature + already edited and do not have important functions such as the possibility of cross-references among commentaries, n-grams, statistics, + morphological and semantic analysis of words. + + uBIQUity will combine and implement (with approx. 20% of increased efficacy) the already existing resources by means of licence + agreements and collaboration with potential partners (e.g., TLG, TLL, Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum) and the adoption of + detecting plagiarism softwares (e.g., iThenticate) as well as corpus query tools (e.g., AntConc, Wordsmith). In addition, it opens a new + road for context understanding by linking textual and spatial elements with religious significance. Technicians will integrate the pre- + existing models with the most advanced methods of semantic word-embedding (e.g., word3vec) according to uBIQUity’s outcomes. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A8.1: Analysis and Prototyping: Preliminary scientific and technical work: analysis and mapping of the corpora, analysis of technical + requirements and scientific needs. + + A8.2.1: Scientific Preparation/IT: verification of the technical and scientific requirements, software experimenting, acquisition of software + licences. + A8.2.2: Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran: corpus acquisition and interaction with TLG, TLL; corpus acquisition and + interaction with Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum partners. + A8.2.3: Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation: linking of places and spaces described in Qu’ranic and Biblical texts and + commentaries to existing (or once-existing) places. + + A8.3: Development: Development of a software specifically aimed at recognizing and detecting Biblical and Qur’ānic quotations and + allusions in the corpora. + + A8.4: Test: deployment and testing of two websites (Biblical and Qur’ānic commentaries) hosted by a shared platform, which will + interoperate with the same software projected to work with three different alphabets and languages (Greek, Latin, and Arabic). + + A8.5: Operations: uBIQUity goes in production. Running uBIQUity on the two corpora, release of the service in RESILIENCE- + RI.EU platform, and publication of uBIQUity for marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The WP makes available a full set of digitised commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān written in the established + chronological frame. Texts will undergo a formal revision by specialists of Greek, Latin and Arabic. Where + necessary, texts will be lemmatized and morphologically tagged. The commentaries will be indexed according to the + author’s name / work titles / century. This work will contribute to building two databases that will be made + accessible to the scientific community. Users will be able to query the databases through different access keys. Each + commentary will be accompanied by an updated bibliography. Thanks to the results of this WP, researchers will be + able to quickly and accurately identify quotations/allusions in ancient commentaries on the sacred texts of + Christianity and Islam. Furthemore, more functions will be made available in uBIQUity, such as n-grams, statistics, + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + + + + 308 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + (also visual) subsets quotations/allusions found in commentaries according to their possible variant readings. + uBIQUity strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + search&find and collaboration tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation: + There are no databases specifically dedicated to ancient commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān. Some + commentaries have never been digitised and this first step will make an outstanding literary and exegetical heritage + available for researchers’ needs. The set of annexed instruments requires a Religious Studies expertise to be properly + laid out, and the Religious Studies scholarly community remains its primary target: the set of instruments, however, + will be auxiliary to other involved research fields, such as philology, textual criticism, history, and others. + With regards to the primary target domain, namely Religious Studies, the use of a more adequate and advanced + toolkit for concordances and text analysis is capable of allowing the achievement of significantly better results + compared to now. Semantic computational analysis will produce new research acquisitions. Reconstructing with the + highest degree of accuracy the way a text or an author dialogues with other texts or authors (through direct or + indirect, implicit, quotations, allusions, imitations or re-writings) means to clearly visualise and, hence, to be able to + explore more efficiently the continuous and unavoidable dialectic between past and present, tradition and + innovation, which lies at the very basis of hermeneutics. The proposed digital prototype aims at creating a shared + research instrument that will fill the gap resulting from the lack of a standard scientific approach. Besides, identifying + the range of quotations/allusions present in a certain author’s work will help visually reconstruct their Biblical or + Qur’ānic library, i.e., the number and kind of their readings. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D8.1.1 Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + This whitepaper describes the functions of the algorithms producing concordances + list, indicating possible allusions, and carrying out citation network analysis on the + BM6 6 corpora under scrutiny. The whitepaper also details how to prepare a corpus for + processing, even in different languages and alphabets, drawing from experience + obtained by working with the Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries. + + BM7 7 - + + D8.1.2 Whitepaper on uBIQUity + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of uBIQUity, intended as a + software that runs the algorithms and the functions described in D8.1.1 on two + BM8 8 twin websites (for Bible and Qur’an) hosted by a shared platform. This deliverable + details the type of operations that can be performed on the corpora, and collects + the results of preliminary testing, serving as a basis for the training material and the + documentation to be provided for uBIQUity. + + BM9 9 - + + + + + 309 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D8.1.3 Whitepaper on the results using UBIQUITY on Bible and Qur'anic + commentaries + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to uBIQUity, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It not only describes uBIQUity’s performances in theory (as with + D8.1.2), but it also presents the results of its operation “on the field”, thus acting + not only as a prototype or a scientific demonstrator, but as a potential instrument + for producing new knowledge and opening new roads for research. + + BM17 17 - + + D8.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM19 19 uBIQUity is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + package includes use-case samples (drawn from D8.1.3), as well as templates. + + D8.3 Publishing of new Bible and Qur'anic commentaries metadata on + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D8.1.2 and the documentation + written for D8.2, along with data prepared according to D.8.1.1 guidelines, are + combined in the release of two websites (for Bible and Qu’ran, each with their + relative commentaries), hosted by a shared platform through RESILIENCE and + powered by uBIQUity. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly community + BM21 21 a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and exploring the + connections between religious texts and their commentaries; on the other hand, + this displays the potentialities of uBIQUity, setting a new standard for tools + dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also for other domains. + D8.4 Prepare uBIQUity for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of uBIQUity are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + + + + 310 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + BM2 2 ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + + + + 311 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM3 3 ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + + + + 312 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM4 4 For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + + + + 313 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM5 5 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + + + + 314 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM6 6 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 315 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM7 7 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 316 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM8 8 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM9 9 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 317 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM10 10 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 318 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + + + + 319 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + + + + 320 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM17 17 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + + + + 321 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM19 19 ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + + + + 322 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + BM21 21 ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 323 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 30.032,14 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 60.064,27 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of the Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 108.791,69 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 324 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered; Approval of second release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.282,77 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 325 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.490,22 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + + + + 326 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 336 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 27.301,64 27.301,64 + + 2 BM2 54.603,28 81.904,92 + + 3 BM3 80.419,44 162.324,36 + + 4 BM4 83.395,04 245.719,40 + + 5 BM5 83.395,04 329.114,44 + + 6 BM6 83.395,04 412.509,48 + + 7 BM7 83.395,04 495.904,52 + + 8 BM8 83.395,04 579.299,56 + + 9 BM9 83.395,04 662.694,60 + + 10 BM10 83.395,07 746.089,67 + + 13 BM13 83.395,04 829.484,71 + + 15 BM15 83.395,04 912.879,75 + + 17 BM17 83.395,04 996.274,79 + + 19 BM19 83.395,04 1.079.669,83 + + 21 BM21 66.166,42 1.145.836,25 + + + 36 WP title + TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies + 37 WP number + 9 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 337 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + + 40 WP Leader + Stefano De Martino, Full Professor, OU10 UNITO-DSS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + The work package has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and + materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally + applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains two such instruments: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: tablets from the Near East. + - ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. + + Scope and goal + The tool prototypes developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope + and application. More in particular: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: cuneiform tablets from the Near East. + This prototype is dedicated to the collection and representation of the about two millions of cuneiform tablets and bullae documenting + history and religion(s) of the Near East. They are written in cuneiform writing but in different languages, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, + Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite, Hattic, Luwian, and Ugaritic. A significant part of them features religion-specific content, but their + accessibility remains an issue for contemporary scholars. In fact, the tablets are dispersed in several museums in the world, and can often + be accessed only through hand copies and photographs. Hand copies, however, are a subjective work and can contain mistakes. + Photographs, on the other hand, can represent only with great difficulty the curved surface of the tablet. Thus, neither of these traditional + methods can be considered satisfyingly accurate. Even physical access to the document is often not a viable option, because of their fragility + and/or because of unstable political situations in the places where they are stored and preserved. EnLil aims at making cuneiform tablets + accessible in a 3D virtual representation. We aim at testing all the available instrumentation on the collection of tablets in Torino (Musei + Reali) in order ro check the most reliable and low cost equipment. Some of the 3D photo instruments are very expensive and Middle + Eastern Museums cannot support these costs. After the survey of the available instrumentation we will be able to share with the producers + the needs required by the best high resolution 3DScan for the virtual representation of any possible object with a curved surface. A test + will be made on a collection of tablets (either in Turkey or in Iraq) with a virtual reconstruction of the building where the tablesìts had + been kept (MiRAr project). In addition, we will train members of the staff of some Turkish and/or Iraqi museums. Among the other + projects of representation of the cuneiform tablets, the most advanced is the project led by the Universities of Wuerzburg, Mainz and + Dortmund whose focus is analysing the characters of cuneiform writing and putting together the pieces of fragmented documents, while we + propose to reconstruct a virtual ancient library with its content. A collaboration with the aforementioned project is on our agenda. + - ACIS – Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. This prototype aims to merge the domains of archival digitization and informative + modelling by using artificial intelligence (AI) applications to serve as a shared information collection layer for EnLil and MiRAr. + The general objective of ACIS is therefore the systematisation and optimization of documentary knowledge, making archival, + bibliographic and iconographic sources interoperable and accessible through the extraction of innovative information from multimedia + digital archives based on deep learning techniques. In principle, ACIS also makes possible a layered 3d visualisation of the artefacts + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + + + 338 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + pertaining to each object. Modification and restoration vicissitudes, collection and exhibition history, visual and literary sources are + reconstructed and analysed comprehensively, as evidence of the "life" of artworks in relation to more general instances of change, including + mentality, taste, culture, materials, meaning and ideology, and social structure. The project also integrates the "future life" of works of art, + integrating knowledge of techniques, restoration practices and preventive maintenance protocols. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A9.1: Analysis and prototyping: recognition and experimenting of 3d acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS); + analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts); layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre- + processing of source archives (where needed); layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and + made available to ACIS and then to EnLil (for tablets and sites). + + A9.2: Scientific Preparation: acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; mapping of the history of conservation for works + of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of preservation, collector and museum history (for + ACIS); validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in the following activity (A9.3). + + A9.3: Development: development of software specified in A9.1, with a prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, + sites, artefacts); development of a repository as required by A9.1; enhancement and optimisation of 3d visualisation software for each of + the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + + A9.4: Test: the acquisition system is tested; the automatic metadatation prototype is tested; the optimised visualisation prototypes for + EnLil, ACIS are tested; testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated + for improvement of the prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + + A9.5: Operation: EnLil and ACIS are implemented and run on specific use-cases; the resulting databases are published on + RESILIENCE.EU; EnLil and ACIS are prepared for publication to RIs software marketplace such as EOSC/SSHOC, + CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The aim of TAURUS is to push forward our understanding of ancient religions by allowing researchers to access + documents in a new way. + In the case of written documents, with EnLil, it provides a technology for 3D acquisition and visualisation, which is + fundamental for objects that are fragile and tri-dimensional like cuneiform tablets and bullae; in addition, it enlarges + the corpus available to researchers, laying the foundation for further discovery, and locates them in the place of + discovery. + In the case of heritage artefacts, ACIS draws information from available archives and databases on the status and the + conservational history of each artefact. As such, it serves as a data source (or as a data enricher) for EnLil (when the + artefacts are tablets, and contextualised in space); additionally, it is also usable as a self-standing service for + visualisation of the single artefact (or artefact collection). + + TAURUS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + + Motivation + TAURUS optimises effort to overcome shortages of current tools available for Religious Studies and Archaeology + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + + + 339 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + 1)With EnLil, it overcomes the difficulty of the availability of the real cuneiform tablets and bullae by means of a + 3D-capable digital library, maximising exploitability of all the available data (content of the documents, their + materiality, state of preservation, lay out, palaeography of the writing, connections among texts coming from + different ages and countries, places of discovery) + 2)With ACIS, it makes available information on the transformations that artefacts have undergone in substance and + location. Through the history of restoration, it allows researchers and users to access the stories of objects but also + of the people who have observed, loved, stole, bought, stored, restored and studied them. Another effect of ACIS is + connected to issues of restoration and preventive conservation, a complex case where it is necessary to consider the + needs of the historic buildings and their relationship with the needs of the collections. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D9.1.1 Whitepaper on EnLil + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of EnLil , intended as a + software that performs 3D virtual representation and builds a virtual ancient + BM6 6 library. Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes + EnLil in its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in + subsequent phases. + + BM7 7 - + + D9.1.2 Whitepaper on ACIS + This whitepaper focuses on reconstructing the mechanisms of ACIS and + illustrating the links between existing sources and databases. There are two steps: + BM8 8 1) the definition of a protocol for the narration of the conservative history of the + artistic heritage and 2) the connection between diagnostic techniques and + preventive maintenance + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D9.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM15 15 TAURUS is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of two + training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + + D9.3.1 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - EnLil + BM17 17 The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + + + + 340 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by EnLil itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of EnLil. + D9.3.2 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - ACIS + The database created by using ACIS on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by ACIS itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototyp for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of ACIS. + + BM19 19 - + + D9.4 Prepare the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS) for publication to + RESILIENCE marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of the TAURUS toolkit + elements are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the software + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM1 1 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 341 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM2 2 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM3 3 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 342 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM4 4 ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + + + 343 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM5 5 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 344 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + + + + 345 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM8 8 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + + + 346 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM9 9 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM10 10 ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + + + + 347 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + BM13 13 ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + + + + 348 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM15 15 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM17 17 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 349 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM19 19 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + + + + 350 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM21 21 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 27.301,64 + + IO Desciption + + + + 351 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.603,28 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on EnLil + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 80.419,44 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on ACIS + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 352 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 83.395,07 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in PRODUCTION environment; second release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + + + 353 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 66.166,42 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + + + + 354 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 361 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 22.386,98 22.386,98 + + 2 BM2 44.773,97 67.160,95 + + 3 BM3 95.101,00 162.261,95 + + 4 BM4 101.788,50 264.050,45 + + 5 BM5 101.788,50 365.838,95 + + 6 BM6 101.788,50 467.627,45 + + 7 BM7 101.788,50 569.415,95 + + 8 BM8 101.788,50 671.204,45 + + 9 BM9 101.788,50 772.992,95 + + 10 BM10 101.788,55 874.781,50 + + 13 BM13 101.788,50 976.570,00 + + 15 BM15 101.788,50 1.078.358,50 + + 17 BM17 101.788,50 1.180.147,00 + + 19 BM19 101.788,50 1.281.935,50 + + 21 BM21 70.812,00 1.352.747,50 + + +36 WP title + ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond +37 WP number + 10 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 362 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + +40 WP Leader + Andrea D'Andrea, Senior Research Fellow, OU4 UNIOR-DAAM +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + This WP aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive dedicated to + complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it uses texts from + the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. About this case-study, the WP firstly produces an analysis of the most correct procedures + for the digitization and online publication of ancient texts and manuscripts; secondly, it sets out to develop a software able to support + scholars in the research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. The procedures and the software blueprint are intended to be + applicable to a diverse spectrum of texts, even beyond the case-study under scrutiny. + + Scope and goal + Many ancient textual documents from the Nile Valley and the other neighbour regions of north-eastern Africa, and the Near East deal + with religious content. They are written in hieroglyph, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Latin, and Coptic alphabet, Meroitic hieroglyph and + cursive, old Nubian script, epigraphic South Arabian, Arabic and Ge'ez script. The used languages are Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old + Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, Arabic and Ge‘ez. The support materials of the texts are stone, clay, + papyrus, parchment, pottery, wood. Consequently, the adopted tools range from the stylus to the cisel. + The chronology of these texts ranges from the end of the 4th millennium BC, with the earliest hieroglyph inscriptions, to the 15th century + AD, with the latest Old Nubian documents (later productions in Arabic and Coptic, mainly consist of manuscripts, lay beyond the scope + of this WP and can be covered in other RESILIENCE activities). The contents of these texts are very different and varied: descriptions + of religious ceremonies, funerary texts, prayers, incantations, lists of offerings and temple personnel, etc. + A data set of a large and rich selection of these texts (in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of + South Arabian, Ge‘ez, Arabic) is still lacking and only some partial digital archives are currently available. + As far as texts on stone and other hard supports are concerned, only very partial and unsystematic programs of scanning of inscriptions + and associated structures have been undertaken in the Nile Valley area. Still very recently (2016) teams working on the implementation + of partial corpora were relying on traditional, even if digital, photographic technique (see e.g., the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by the + Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents). Other projects, although adopting more technologically advanced procedures, including the + use of laser scanning technology, were focussing on a single site and a single type of writing support, like in the case of the von Humboldt + Universität project at in the Meroitic monumental complex at Musawwarat es-Sufra or of the Münich Museum project at the Meroitic + site of Naqa. “The Picturing Religion: The Philae Temple Graffiti Project” by the Simon Fraser University is ongoing at Philae, in + Egypt and is aimed at recording all the religious graffiti characterizing the temple. Similar activities of scanning rocky facades with rock + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + + + + 363 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + The automatic textual analysis was also only very rarely attempted in the study of the inscribed documents form the Nile valley. A very + famous and precocious, but very soon abandoned example was represented by Meroitic inscriptions and took place through the digitization + of the transliterated texts. In any case, as in the case of manuscripts, no attempts were made to integrate in a single procedure the scan of + the document, the analysis of its text and the analysis of the support. + In the case of funerary contexts, although some projects were undertaken for digitising tombs in the Nile valley, like in the case of the + Saite Saqqara Tombs Project of the University of Tübingen, this was not related to the analysis of the texts associated to the tombs and + of the writing support. + The same tardiness can be remarked in adopting digital technologies not only for recording but also for analysing texts on papyrus and the + writing support itself. Moreover, also in this case only specific projects on single collections can be remarked, like in the case of the ongoing + TPOP project in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. + Even in the case of manuscripts (and other texts on soft supports, such as papyrus, parchment etc.) from the Nile Valley, only specific + and sometimes partial projects were conducted so far (see a list at Digitized Manuscript Collections - A Research Guide to Middle + Eastern Studies - Guides at Penn Libraries (upenn.edu)). So far no attempts were made to relate the scanning of the manuscripts to the + automatic identification and analysis of the text, as well as to the analysis of the writing support. Moreover, the lack of suitable portable + equipment should be lamented, as this greatly limits the possibility of recording large collections of manuscripts kept in far and remote + locations. + Even when attempts were made to conduct an automatised linguistic analysis of the texts, like, e.g. the one conducted on Sahidic Coptic + manuscripts by the University of Colorado, the textual analysis was unrelated to the implementation of a digital reproduction of the + manuscript and to the analysis of the writing support. + + ReTINA aims to create an environment that in the first place lays out and optimises common guidelines for the digitisation and digital + archiving of such a diverse array of sources, accounting for the challenges posed by the very different languages and writing support types. + Secondly, building on these guidelines, it aims to produce a blueprint and a prototype of a software tool for supporting scholars in the + research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. In the third place, it uses the guidelines, the software prototype and domain- + specific expertise to lay out specifications for hardware that can be used to acquire texts in different support even in difficult environments + (because of climatic, political, or economical reasons). + The interconnection between the merely textual element and the religious component, given by the very nature of the texts under scrutiny, + allows ReTINA to go beyond the linguistic aspect, assisting researchers with the necessary information on context, religious significance + and religious history that allow to improve the interpretation of the analysed documents. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A10.1: Analysis. This activity is focused on selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from + different times, regions, languages and supports. + + A10.2: Scientific preparation. Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing of the datasets and description of the original contexts of + relevance with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts. + + A10.3: Development. This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the + complexity of the case study. The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process. Finally, it develops + a software prototype for annotation and visualisation of the texts. + + A10.4: Test. This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3 + + A10.5: Operations. This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for + release in the RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and + scientific point of view. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + + + + 364 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + ReTINA empowers RESILIENCE RI by implementing a digital archive containing some datasets of religious + content from sites in the ancient world along the Nile Valley and its surroundings, including various languages and + cultures. Starting with a comprehensive review of the state of the art in the field of study (white paper) and using + digital datasets available to the research unit, a data model will be designed. The schema will be consistent with the + main international metadata standards, taxonomies and thesauri and will be published as Open Data and/or Linked + Open Data to encourage the spread of the principles of FAIR data and, more generally, of Open Science in this area + of study. Some mapping procedures, which will allow to carry out a data-integration among data encoded according + to different schemas, will be designed, and implemented to facilitate the integration of various datasets and + heterogenous archives. + The goal is achieved through completion of several steps, examining digital datasets already directly available to + UNIOR or through agreements in place with Italian Museums and Archives to highlight strengths and weaknesses + in the sharing and reuse of data. At the same time, other paper archives (cards, photos, texts, etc.) will be digitised + according to a data scheme developed by UNIOR. + The digital archives will be compared and integrated thanks to the semantic and syntactic interoperability guaranteed + by the adoption of international metadata. The texts, appropriately transliterated, will be able to be annotated by the + users who will also be able to visualise the support of the text in 3D and have precise information on the material + used to inscribe the subject with religious content. Different digitisations approaches and 3D technologies will be + tried to identify ways to digitally acquire these materials; the results will give important results on the best practices + to create digital resources compliant with the requisite of RESILIENCE. + + ReTINA strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + ReTINA addresses a gap in the digital description and fruition of Religious Texts in ancient and rare script and from + complex contexts by optimising a shared data model and by producing software prototype for fruition. The domain- + specific character of Religious Studies, where the linguistic significance of the texts must be linked to specific + historical, theological and cultural factors, allows to account for descriptors that go beyond the merely linguistic + level, and can lay the basis for further digitisation works. The fragmented context of the Nile Valley case-study + represents a microcosmos that can be extended to other equally (or more) fragmented contexts: ReTINA therefore + represents a prototype that, thanks to digitisation and complex visualisation, can increase knowledge and + understanding even beyond the Nile Valley. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + BM6 6 This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + + + + 365 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + BM6 6 archives on ancient religious content, and serves as a basis for the further + development of ReTINA. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 . + + D10.2: Preliminary Data-Model + This deliverable contains the schema for encoding texts and manuscripts according + BM9 9 to Open Science principles, accounting for the different supports and for the + specificities due to the religious nature of the texts. + + D10.3: Data-acquisition procedures + This deliverable validates the preliminary data-model, and completes it by + BM10 10 describing procedures to digitise texts and manuscripts and to enrich the + digitisation with 3D data, chemical and Mineralogical data etc. + + BM13 13 - + + D10.4: Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface + This deliverable consists of a prototype of ReTINA, a software prototype for + BM15 15 annotating texts and manuscripts according to the specifications of D10.3,for + archiving, and for visualising the annotated texts and the relative + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D10.5 Prepare ReTINA for publication to RESILIENCE RI marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of ReTINA are packaged + BM21 21 as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. In addition the validated guidelines + are published for re-use by the scholarly community + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 366 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM2 2 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 367 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + BM3 3 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM4 4 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 368 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM5 5 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + + + + 369 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM6 6 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM7 7 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 370 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM8 8 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 371 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM9 9 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + + 372 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM10 10 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + + + + 373 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + BM15 15 ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + + + + 374 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM17 17 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM19 19 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 375 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM21 21 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 376 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 22.386,98 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 44.773,97 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on digital archives on ancient religious content + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 95.101,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts for ReTINA + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 377 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 101.788,55 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 378 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Document delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in PRODUCTION environment; second release of Prototype + for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Application of ReTINA data model and annotator to the case-study corpora + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 70.812,00 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + + + + 379 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + + + + + 387 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 6.163,05 6.163,05 + + 2 BM2 54.314,50 60.477,55 + + 3 BM3 49.812,90 110.290,45 + + 4 BM4 49.812,90 160.103,35 + + 5 BM5 49.812,90 209.916,25 + + 6 BM6 49.812,90 259.729,15 + + 7 BM7 49.812,90 309.542,05 + + 8 BM8 49.812,90 359.354,95 + + 9 BM9 49.812,90 409.167,85 + + 10 BM10 49.812,85 458.980,70 + + 13 BM13 49.812,90 508.793,60 + + 15 BM15 49.812,90 558.606,50 + + 17 BM17 49.812,90 608.419,40 + + 19 BM19 26.385,58 634.804,98 + + 21 BM21 1.479,13 636.284,11 + + + 36 WP title + Trans-National Access + 37 WP number + 11 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 388 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP11 is dedicated to the management of Trans-National Access activities, which includes: administrative effort to ensure the proper + development of the process from the call to the payment of the grants; provision of all necessary equipment for TNA grant-holders to + develop their research; coordination with the RESILIENCE TNA programme. + + Scope + ITSERR Transnational Access Programme offers physical and virtual access to the most significant tools and sources in the field of + religious studies. + This offer is unique, because it combines data of institutions participating in ITSERR, thus offering knowledge that is of high importance + not only for scholars, but also for decision makers from society and policy. The transnational access service is an answer to the need of + scholars to have direct and effective access to the objects of their research, which are preserved in different institutions. Often these collections + neither have been digitised nor can be uploaded without restricted access. + Through its Transnational Access Programme ITSERR offers support and expertise for research stays at Italian centres and libraries + that hold relevant collections for the study of religions. These institutions grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, + documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies. + The aim of ITSERR is to facilitate and foster a sophisticated and advanced TNA system to sources, resources, expertise and services for + researchers in Religious Studies and related disciplines which are available within ITSERR, ensure an efficient access workflow and a + single entry point. To provide excellence-driven access to its physical resources, ITSERR offers assistance to researchers seeking to conduct + a research visit at one of the partner facilities offering this type of access. The goal of the research visits is to grant scholars direct and + effective access to the objects of their research. This includes access to research material and instructions to effectively make use of it as well + as a work place at the facility. Furthermore, ITSERR aims at matching all successful TNA applicants with experts at the facilities who + can guide them or offer advice on the subject of study. + Moreover, to cover all disciplines involved in the study of religions in all their facets and provide the widest range of relevant materials and + expertise, ITSERR seeks to include further partners into its TNA program. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + - 120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated number of 50 users + - 108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + + Activities + A11.1 TNA Services Brainstorming: based on the deliverables existing within RESILIENCE, the Consortium brainstorms on the + best ways to provide TNA services to the ITSERR Italian Researchers ecosystem. This activity leads to the creation of the TNA + Management Plan. + + A11.2 Planning of TNA activities: A list of the resources that could be made available to the TNA users is finalised and a calendar of + the Call for Proposal publication is established. + + + + 389 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A11.3 Execution of TNA activities: The Call for proposals are published following the plan established. A Peer Review Committee is + set-up to read, qualify and select the best proposals submitted by the TNA candidates. When the candidates are selected, the TNA + administration organises all the visits for the different resources. + + A11.4 TNA activities follow-up: This activity, started with the Call for Proposal, aims at continuously collecting feedback from all + ITSERR TNA stakeholders and synchronising the TNA strategy and planning with RESILIENCE. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and manages the TNA Services to be provided within WP3 to WP10 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The access policy is formalised, published within an ITSERR TNA Management Plan and a first set of TNA calls + for proposal are implemented. + Researchers are put in the condition of knowing what RESILIENCE services are offered, what are the benefits of + accessing them, where they are accessible and following which procedure, etc. For those services requiring an + excellence-driven access mode RESILIENCE puts in place a fully operational TNA call-cycle. Such a call system, + accessible to physical and digital services already in place and running at RESILIENCE facilities, is made operational + during this project. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + -120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated + number of 50 users + -108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + -All performed over 4 calls for proposals published each semester + With respect to physical access, the RI assumes as the unit of access: + -a week for individuals and/or teams willing to access facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place + and running, since a week is an appropriate amount of time to use the material instruments of research (archives, + libraries, collections). A week is a unit of access that grants the needed acquaintance with the documents and sources + and their effective use within the research activity. In the TNA programme organised by the RESILIENCE Starting + Community, ReIReS, users usually spent two weeks at the TNA provider to develop their project. + -A month for individuals and/or teams willing to access the working groups and research teams of ITSERR in its + technical development, allowing their participation in the making of the services. + + This TNA programme strengthens particularly the RESILIENCE supply of research-enhancing services in its + physical access mode, and most importantly works as a case-study to further the RESILIENCE development of + TNA activities (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + BM1 1 quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + BM2 2 - + + + + + 390 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM5 5 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM8 8 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM13 13 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM15 15 - + + + + 391 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + BM21 21 ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM1 1 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + BM2 2 The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + + + + 392 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM2 2 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM3 3 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + BM4 4 level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + + + + 393 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM5 5 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + BM6 6 approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + + + + 394 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM7 7 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM8 8 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + BM9 9 ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + + + + 395 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM10 10 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + BM13 13 ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + + + + 396 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM15 15 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM17 17 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + + + + 397 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM19 19 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM21 21 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + + + + 398 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 6.163,05 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.314,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + First TNA Call published + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Second TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 399 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Third TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 49.812,85 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Fourth TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + + + + 400 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 26.385,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 1.479,13 + + IO Desciption + Last version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access + operations and research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + + + + + 401 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + TNA activities follow-up + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 406 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 407 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 225.784,62 225.784,62 + + 2 BM2 255.054,54 480.839,16 + + 3 BM3 293.681,45 774.520,61 + + 4 BM4 293.681,45 1.068.202,06 + + 5 BM5 255.054,54 1.323.256,60 + + 6 BM6 216.427,63 1.539.684,23 + + 7 BM7 216.427,63 1.756.111,86 + + 8 BM8 216.427,63 1.972.539,49 + + 9 BM9 216.427,63 2.188.967,12 + + 10 BM10 216.427,60 2.405.394,72 + + 13 BM13 216.427,63 2.621.822,35 + + 15 BM15 216.427,63 2.838.249,98 + + 17 BM17 271.638,34 3.109.888,32 + + 19 BM19 271.638,34 3.381.526,66 + + 21 BM21 204.662,23 3.586.188,89 + + + 36 WP title + Project and Impact Management + 37 WP number + 1 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 1 WP Duration 42 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 408 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Carlo Meghini, Director of Research, OU 1 CNR-ISTI + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + The Project Management and Impact WP is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the + project to achieve its objectives and to evaluate its impact in the short and long term. It is therefore an activity that oversees all WPs. + The activities managed by WP1 produce excellent individual results for each WP but collectively integrated within the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem and by spreading these results through various market places (e.g., SSHOC, CLARIN, DARIAH, etc.), they will + generate a chain reaction of new research data, capacities, interconnections, exploitation, etc. becoming far more than the sum of individual + WP results. + To support the work conducted by scientific and technical teams, therefore, the WP aims at: + Implementing the ITSERR governance structure, and ensuring partners’ coordinated and cooperative work; + Guaranteeing the guidance, cooperation, synergy and synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE; + Monitoring the progress of the whole project and of the single WPs and managing contingencies; + Identifying risks and implementing effective control measures; + Monitoring the quality of the deliverables produced and the respect of progress indicators; + Ensuring the respect of security measures for the deliverables produced and the services provided; + Managing the human resources involved in the project; + Implementing a communication strategy for the project and coordinating its activities within RESILIENCE; + Identifying and organising training activities for the human resources involved in the project; + Detailing the RESILIENCE socio-economic ex ante impact study for the Italian context, in terms of effective impact cases, to be + evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms. + Endorse and adapt the RESILIENCE impact measurement methodology to ITSERR to identify, evaluate and quantify the project’s + impact in the long term in its different areas of action (science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources); + Ensure ITSERR sustainability beyond the 30 months of duration of the project. + + Summary of activities + + + + 409 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Summary of activities + A1.1 Governance set-up: During this activity, the ITSERR management team will perform the following activities: + - Organisation of the Kick-off event + - Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: + - Detailed Organisation Plan (See D1.1) + - Quality Assurance Plan (See D1.2) + - Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3) + - Security Management Plan(See D1.5) + - Set-up of the entire management and governance structures of ITSERR: Board of Directors (BoD); Steering Committee; International + Advisory Board (IAB) and Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF) + - Organisation of WP Staff Trainings + - Organised the synchronisation of knowledge, resources, software and services with RESILIENCE + - Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners + - Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + - Organise the closure event and submit the final report to the Ministry + - Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + + A1.2 Monitoring: During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager will lead the management of the following activities: + - Daily team stand-up + - Weekly monitoring + - Cross-project follow-up + - Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting + - HR Monitoring + - Impact Monitoring + - Scientific coordination + - Project Management activities performed by the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders + - Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager + - Security Mgt/Monitoring activities under the responsibilities of the Security Officer + + A1.3 to A1.6 Finance & Admin Management for the different partner institutions: cover the project financial duties, administrative + aspects, Human Resources management and support of the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management. + This WP targets excellence in all domains but specifically in the recruitment as it is a key factor of success for the project. Our excellence + strategy is based on the following activity aspects: + - Candidates’ sourcing strategy for an “Excellent satisfactory capacity”: targeting partners departments providing excellence in their + research fields and pre-selection of Italian companies delivering already thousands of ICT staff in Italy; + - High competence: strict and professional qualification process mostly relying on the specialised technical support from our specialised + researchers. All profiles and skills required are described in a skills matrix shared among all recruiters. + - Professional, specialised and innovative qualification material created by our HR team with our Cluster of Competences (CC) composed + by the best researchers and technologists in the domain + - Technical interviews led by Specialised staff from the CC + - The Resource Pool (RP) has an adequate size (2 times the size of the ITSERR yearly staffing plans). + - The content of the RP (incl. CVs) is always accurate and up-to-date. + - Continuous recruitment: implemented by two approaches: 1)Continuous selection of candidates to feed a Resource Pool (RP) exceeding + ITSERR Staffing Plans (reviewed monthly, quarterly & yearly) 2) including a special recruitment strategy for unplanned situations + + A1.7 Impact Management: This activity acts as a transversal WP activity which cooperates with all other WPs to develop an impact + measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact in the long term in its different areas of action such as + science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources. This activity will produce the D1.4 Impact Analysis Report + (IAR). + + A1.8 Communication Management: based on the Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3), the communication team will create + and implement the ITSERR CDP, develop new or updated communication means like flyers, banners etc. + + + + + 410 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A1.9 Training Management: Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and + RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) + necessary to create a ITSERR training framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and + methods to support researchers in using RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + The WPs 2 to 12 are governed by WP1 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + All ITSERR activities are meant to produce key building blocks to the 50+ research services of the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem. + It is correct to state that each WP produces prototype/products and new research (meta)data within a specific area. + But to create a chain reaction of added-value, ITSERR ensures the interoperability and reusability of all data, + software and services produced within the project. + From a scientific point of view, ITSERR includes key scientists who are aware of each other’s activities, specificities + and methodologies, and have a long-standing history of cooperation, as witnessed, for instance, by the recently + launched national PhD course in religious studies. From a technical point of view, the following points apply: + - All WP Leaders meet weekly within the Steering Committee to monitor that activities are progressing as planned + and that resources usage is optimal. + - All WP software requirements are architected and designed by the same architecture team to ensure that a software + re-used existing/shared components, that a software output could be reused as an input to another system, that + systems can be interconnected among themselves but also with other stakeholders (e.g. publishers, GLAM, etc.) + - All Data requirements are modeled by the same Data Management Team to ensure ontological, semantic and + syntactic interoperability not only within RESILIENCE RI ecosystem but more generally with the majority of DH + ecosystems. + - Experience and knowledge generated within each individual WP is centralized and processed to create new + learning material such as best practices for specific research area, , toolkit user guidance, new methods for exploiting + specific research material, etc. + ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and + skills, intersected with the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have + been chosen on the basis of the scientific excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by + the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding them. The maintenance of the balance between these + elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1. This WP dedicated to project and impact management is vital to the + project because it guarantees coherence with the RESILIENCE RI and delivers the following outcomes: + ●guarantee an adequate identification, coordination and monitoring of the project resources, aims, objectives and + activities + ●ensure an interdisciplinary work within and in-between religious sciences and information sciences; + ●professional communication and dissemination from start to finish + ●guarantee the magnitude of the impact that projects contributing to the construction of an SSH-related research + infrastructure usually have on the involved institutions, the areas where they invest their funds, the societies directly + and indirectly benefiting from them, the human resources they rely on. + ●Quality of the deliverables is assured through strict quality control policies and frequent monitoring + ●Security is ensured for all deliverables and services produced for the Digital Humanities research community + ●All our staff is sufficiently trained to ensure the usage and benefit of our management and development + infrastructures. + One of the most important outcomes though, is the fact that all software and services, including the training and + documentation material, are provided professionally on the ITSERR research community and that we also provide a + service desk to all researchers in need of these products and services. + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + + + + 411 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + produce innovation in science and markets (including the labour market), thus WP1 transforms such a challenge into + the ITSERR organisational and management structures. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D1.1: Detailed Organisational Plan (DOP): The DOP is the plan completely + documenting the project management, its development and tooling, the + organisation governance (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.3), the management processes + (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.4) and also templates supporting the reporting activity. + The consortium management structure consists of a total of four entities, decision + making and advisory bodies. + ●Board of Directors (BoD) consists of the IM, the Scientific Coordinator, + RESILIENCE CEO, a Principal Investigator (PI) of UNIPA and a PI of + UNIMORE. The Board elects a Chair and oversees the ultimate decisions on all + strategic choices and issues concerning the development of ITSERR. The BoD + reviews all WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy and allowing to reach + excellence in the contract outcomes. The fact that the RESILIENCE CEO is + present on the board helps to reinforce the guidance, cooperation, synergy and + synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE. The BoD + meets bi-monthly. + ●Steering Committee: chaired by the IM and composed of the Quality Manager + (QM), the Security Officer (SO), all Team Leaders (TLs) and all WP leaders + (WPLs). This committee reviews the delivery of the WP outcomes in due time and + with the expected quality. They are the warrants of the scientific and technological + excellence produced within the WPs. They meet monthly and produce a Service + Monitoring Report (D1.5) each two months submitted to the Board. + ●International Advisory Board (IAB) consists of 9 representatives of major + international academic institutions and of major stakeholders of the project and + ensures advice and evaluation on the general strategy of the project, providing an + BM1 1 independent view on the effectiveness of the accomplishment of the objectives of + the project and on the impact of its outcome within and outside the academic field. + The IAB receives key WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy to be + assessed and debated with the objective to reach excellence in the contract + outcomes. They will meet each semester. + ●Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF): the ESFRI Stakeholders Forum is a newly + established platform, developed by ESFRI with the ambition to instigate an open + dialogue among the different European research infrastructure stakeholders, to + reinforce the position of RIs as an essential pillar of the European Research Area. + ITSERR annually hosts its stakeholders (public and private research entities, + companies, policy and decision-makers, citizens) in a similar framework, aiming at + the enhancement of networking activities, shared decision-making, knowledge and + technology transfer. One key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR + (findable, etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, + H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. + ITSERR will use Design Thinking and Agile/Scrum as core approaches as there + are in Italy a large pool of such trained experts. Scrum is well suited for its agility, + fast developments of new developments as well as evolutive maintenance for such + research-based, fast changing projects. + To respect Italian and EU accessibility directives and provide accessible services + and tools to the Italian Digital Humanities community, our teams will also endorse + usability and accessibility standards such as accessibility standards (i.e. WCAG 2.1, + ATAG, UAAG and XAG, etc.). For ensuring security-proofed development and + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + + + + 412 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + WP1.5 and WP1.6). For technical documentation, their scope and content are + specified by endorsed development standards such as Rational Unified Process + (RUP). + The European Commission PM² Methodology is the project management + methodology adopted by ITSERR. It is a lean and easy to implement methodology + suitable for any type of project as it enables project teams to manage projects + effectively and deliver solutions and benefits to their organisations and + stakeholders. + + D1.2: Quality Assessment Plan (QAP): Based on ISO 9001 quality approach + principles, a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), imposed on all WPs, will define the + quality expectations for the scope and duration of the contract. The Quality + Indicators of the QAP are always two-fold: 1) Scientific: targeting the scientific + excellence expected by the project and 2) Technical: assessing the methodological + and technical requirements that the deliverable must satisfy to be approved. The + QAP aims to ensure that all activities performed as part of the project comply with + the RESILIENCE’s policies, methodologies, WP requirements and RESILIENCE + quality governance framework. + + D1.3 Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP): The plan adapts the C&D + strategy of RESILIENCE to ITSERR, guaranteeing a sound coordination on + what, how, when and to whom is communicated to the Italian and European + targeted audiences. It covers topics such as strategy for online communication, + social media collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, conferences and workshops, + feedback management, corporate design, tools, channels, touchpoints, monitoring, + analytics and reporting. + + D1.5: Security Management Plan (SMP): The Security Management Plan will be + elaborated to define all aspects of the working practices of the project to guarantee + secure delivery. It will contain a Secure Coding/Development Guidelines aligned + with “ISO/IEC 27034 Information technology – Security techniques”, the + OWASP Developer Guide, Testing Guide and Top-10 Application Security Risks. + Adherence to these guidelines will be strictly monitored by the Security Officer + through, in example code reviews, to ensure the security and quality of the + deliverables. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report and Meeting: The contract execution progress is + presented to the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report + which includes at least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + BM2 2 D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + + + + 413 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM2 2 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM3 3 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM4 4 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + + + + 414 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM5 5 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM6 6 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + BM7 7 the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 415 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM8 8 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM9 9 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + BM10 10 description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + + + + 416 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM13 13 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM15 15 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + BM17 17 submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + + + + 417 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM19 19 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.4 Impact Analysis Report (IAR)(M30): The document reports on the metrics + and indicators of the RESILIENCE impact, the methodology chosen to identify + and measure them according to the RESILIENCE impact areas. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM21 21 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.7: Closure Report(M30): ITSERR management team will provide at the + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + + + + 418 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + the contract and their final status, as well as the financial summary on the + expenses. + The final report shall also include: + ●The Service Level measurement report. + ●Pain points and lessons learned. + ●Improvements that took place during the contract. + ●Knowledge base content and its future evolution. + ●Human resources skills / competencies and training + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + BM1 1 Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + + + + 419 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM2 2 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 420 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + BM3 3 For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + + + + 421 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Number of report not meeting the content + requirements; Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM4 4 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + + + + 422 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + BM5 5 IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + + + + 423 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM6 6 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + + + + 424 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + 425 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + BM7 7 the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + + + + 426 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + BM8 8 conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + + + + 427 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + BM9 9 KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + + + + 428 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM10 10 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + + + + 429 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + BM13 13 KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + + + + 430 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM15 15 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + + + + 431 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + BM17 17 incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + + + + 432 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM19 19 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + + + + 433 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + + 434 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + BM21 21 Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + + + + 435 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 225.784,62 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + + + 436 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report deilvered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 216.427,60 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered,WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 437 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit; ; WPs Security Audit + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 204.662,23 + + IO Desciption + Reports delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication + Manager, Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; + licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 438 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the + project; project management training; language courses + + 48 Activity title + Governance set-up + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_proponenti.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_proponenti.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fdfbf5c --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_proponenti.txt @@ -0,0 +1,20218 @@ + + + 86 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 744.750,00 744.750,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.020.000,02 2.020.000,02 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 97.000,00 97.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 245.157,50 245.157,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 640.500,00 640.500,00 + +Total 0,00 3.747.407,52 3.747.407,52 + + + + + 87 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 969.525,00 969.525,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.715.568,00 2.715.568,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 197.500,00 197.500,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 329.681,31 329.681,31 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 827.140,00 827.140,00 + +Total 0,00 5.039.414,31 5.039.414,31 + + + + + 88 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università di Napoli L’Orientale] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 290.625,00 0,00 290.625,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 96.066,25 0,00 96.066,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.468.441,25 0,00 1.468.441,25 + + + + + 89 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Palermo] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 2.189.000,00 0,00 2.189.000,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 6.728.341,80 0,00 6.728.341,80 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 0,00 195.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 150.000,00 0,00 150.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 704.603,69 0,00 704.603,69 + costs + +f. Training activities 803.425,68 0,00 803.425,68 + +Total 10.770.371,17 0,00 10.770.371,17 + + + + + 90 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the + table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Torino] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + + a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + + b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + technological + equipment + + c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + + d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + + e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + + f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + + Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + +Il soggetto beneficiario si dichiara a conoscenza che le variazioni richieste non possono in ogni caso superare, in termini cumulati, il limite del +15% rispetto al totale dei costi ammessi al finanziamento, fermo restando il rispetto dei limiti percentuali, ove presenti, per ciascuna tipologia + + + + + 91 / 453 + PROPOSED PAYMENT PLAN + + + Bimester Payment Amount Cumulative Payment Amount + + 1 531.756,35 € 531.756,35 € + + 2 1.018.683,36 € 1.550.439,71 € + + 3 1.610.259,88 € 3.160.699,59 € + + 4 1.681.736,49 € 4.842.436,08 € + + 5 1.633.393,55 € 6.475.829,63 € + + 6 1.594.766,64 € 8.070.596,27 € + + 7 1.594.766,64 € 9.665.362,91 € + + 8 1.594.766,64 € 11.260.129,55 € + + 9 1.594.766,64 € 12.854.896,19 € + + 10 1.624.633,05 € 14.479.529,24 € + + 13 1.574.766,64 € 16.054.295,88 € + + 15 1.574.766,64 € 17.629.062,52 € + + 17 1.629.977,35 € 19.259.039,87 € + + 19 1.576.683,57 € 20.835.723,44 € + + 21 1.335.747,06 € 22.171.470,50 € + + + + + 92 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 49.846,48 49.846,48 + + 2 BM2 99.692,95 149.539,43 + + 3 BM3 244.276,89 393.816,32 + + 4 BM4 252.998,06 646.814,38 + + 5 BM5 252.998,06 899.812,44 + + 6 BM6 252.998,06 1.152.810,50 + + 7 BM7 252.998,06 1.405.808,56 + + 8 BM8 252.998,06 1.658.806,62 + + 9 BM9 252.998,06 1.911.804,68 + + 10 BM10 252.998,06 2.164.802,74 + + 13 BM13 252.998,06 2.417.800,80 + + 15 BM15 252.998,06 2.670.798,86 + + 17 BM17 252.998,06 2.923.796,92 + + 19 BM19 223.131,60 3.146.928,52 + + 21 BM21 175.379,15 3.322.307,67 + + + 36 WP title + T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies + 37 WP number + 3 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 93 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 8 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + T-ReS is a toolkit of software specifically designed and optimised for the domain of Religious Studies, aimed at empowering researchers + with up-to-date, user-friendly and sustainable tools that take full advantage of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure ecosystem. + The toolkit includes CRITERION, a software for creating critical editions of primary sources, and GNORM, a software that allows a + more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of printed religious normative sources + through data mining techniques and providing a 3D visualisation of the analysed sources. + + Scope and goals + The toolkit for Religious Studies collects a group of software prototype tools (incl. CRITERION and GNORM) that aim at + improving the research experience of scholars, developing a technology that is applicable also to other domains, thanks to the + interdisciplinarity offered by Religious Studies, a cross-fertile domain of knowledge that links philology, theology, history, law, art-history, + linguistics, semantics, philosophy, sociology, and which collaborates with hard-science such as chemistry in the study of primary sources (eg. + analysis of inks in the manuscripts). T-ReS includes two major use cases (CRITERION and GNORM, outlined below), grouped in a + single WP in order to maximise synergy and with the aim of providing a library of reusable software components. Such a library allows to + simplify and speed up the development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi-language, multi-alphabet, multi- + onthologies solutions for the in-depth processing of voluminous corpora; additionally, the library can be applied to and draw from the other + WPs of the project. The prototype tools envisaged specifically for the T-ReS WP are: + 1. The development of CRITERION, an open-source, multi-platform, multi-language and multi-alphabet software for creating critical + editions of primary sources. It is meant primarily for religious texts, where textual criticism and editions in diverse (and often uncommon + or ancient) languages are crucial, not only for the establishment of a text and understanding its context, but also for the impact that + religious texts had and have on the life of millions of people. The current digital resources show various shortages: + - The little support for uncommon and ancient languages in software producing critical editions or, when support exists, lack of tools for + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + + + + 94 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + - Lack of room for cooperation, while (especially in Religious Studies) cross-language cooperation and re-use of research data are + quintessential to the field, and therefore crucial. + - The available software is either non-open source, or discontinued. + - The available editors for critical editions provide poor support material even in the case of non-open source editors (such as CTE). + To overcome these challenges, CRITERION is able to produce printed and/or digital editions, in an easily readable and readily easily + interoperable format, with PDF and TEI-based encoding respectively: TEI standards can be applied for the management of next- + generation standoff properties. CRITERION, being Open Source and part of an infrastructural ecosystem, is released to a user + community that can support and enhance its elements (i.e. plug-ins) through a dedicated website and users’ forum (cfr. Stack Exchange). + To achieve its purpose, CRITERION must also be able to incorporate an advanced plug-in model allowing the automatic collation of + witnesses and the production (and visualisation) of sets of variants, of manuscript groups and of relationships between manuscripts in the + form of potential stemmata, supplanting tools such as ChrysoCollate. Most importantly, CRITERION allows also to preserve and re- + use the research data that text editors collect during their work. The research data is preserved in a structured dataset that ensures + Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR principles), thus pushing forward philological research. + + 2. GNORM is a software allowing a more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of + printed religious normative sources through data mining techniques based on the word2vec model and applying standoff properties to large + corpora. GNORM is capable of visualising the results of its analysis in 3D, researchers to examine the evolution of religious normative + texts both in their textual and paratextual elements. Given that religious normative texts have their own specific internal consistency, + which is shared by different corpora, ITSERR is able to provide the perfect environment for developing a domain-oriented prototype like + GNORM. Once again, the digital shortages in the currently available tools become GNORM’s challenges: + a) While a 2D visualisation is already possible, it does not allow an easy, user-friendly interface able to show the chronological + stratification of a primary source, both in its textual and paratextual elements. + b) Optimization of already existing 3D visualisation technology for Religious Studies, where the implications of the texts under scrutiny + go well beyond their philological or literary aspects and involve significant historical, theological and juridical aspects. + With GNORM, the glosses are digitally categorised and ordered through metadata assignment obtained through machine learning, and + the properties according to which they are categorised (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.) correspond to the + axes that can be viewed in 3D visualisation (for a maximum of 3 axes). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP: + A3.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of text editors capable of producing critical editions (for CRITERION); + analysis and evaluation of source material, and analysis of suitable software tools (for GNORM); analysis of the features required by a + shared library for ITSERR software tools; formulation of scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + + A3.2: Scientific preparation, divided in: + A3.2.1: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for CRITERION. + A3.2.2: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for GNORM. + A3.2.3: evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION. + A3.2.4: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici. + A3.2.5: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Talmud Bavli. + + A3.3: Development: + For CRITERION: Optimisation/development of an editor for applying to text TEI-based standoff properties, that are stored in and + retrieved from a graph database, implementation of import/export functions for the graph database used by the editor, and integration of + an automatic collation software (e.g. CollateX or Chrysocollate) with the editor, as a plugin. + For GNORM: Optimisation of data mining algorithm for applying word embedding to the texts in the corpora; + development/optimisation of a software for automatic application of properties to the corpus; development of a 3D visualisation software + for the assigned properties. + For T-ReS in general: development of a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR and also RESILIENCE research services. + A3.4: Test: Testing of CRITERION and GNORM with the scientific community; testing of the shared library across software + developed in other WPs. + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + + + + 95 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + the CRITERION user community. Running GNORM on the collected corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, and + publication of CRITERION and GNORM for the RESILIENCE marketplace. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + 1. The first output of T-ReS is CRITERION, a software that allows users to produce both digital and/or printed + critical editions, with full representation of a multi-level critical apparatus (for variant readings, sources, intertextual + references etc). In substance, the outcome of CRITERION is a software that is able to: + 1)Annotate a text with TEI standards with standoff properties. + 2)Order the annotated properties in a graph database, and retrieve them for visualisation according to the users’ + input. + 3)Produce an automated collation of witnesses, if required by the user. + 4)Import databases of textual properties from third-party collation software (if the data model is compatible). + 5)Import databases of textual properties created by other users of CRITERION. + 6)Visualise relationships between textual properties (e.g. manuscript groups, variant readings) by retrieving + information from its graph database. + 7)Export results in XML or PDF for digital and printed editions respectively. + 8)Possibility to support the export of result with a future standard model for TEI, standoff annotation. + 2. GNORM will develop a 3D visualisation software that makes possible to visualise the chronological stratification + of the textual and paratextual elements of a source. The axes of the 3D visualisation can be chosen by the users + from an array of properties (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.). + The test case will be based on specific corpora: the Corpus Iuris Canonici and the Talmud Bavli. + 3. T-ReS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + Motivation + 1)CRITERION is one of the greatest desiderata of those fields of study whose specialisms are based upon, or at + least strongly characterised by, the production and analysis of critical texts of primary sources. Although this niche + of the market is not devoid of relevant tools, none of the latter simultaneously cover all the requirements set by + CRITERION: for instance, some completely lack the multi-layered approach (like CTE); some are not WYSIWYG + (like most LaTeX-based software); most are not optimised for non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets; some are not + optimised for non-Windows users (again, like CTE); some are not familiar with markup languages (e.g. traditional + word editors, like MS Word, LibreOffice etc.), and some are designed only for online editions). The field of + Religious Studies, where textual criticism is not only relevant per se, but is also connected with historical, theological + and juridical issues, and where connected texts are often extant in different languages and alphabets, is one of the + very few environments where a powerful prototype like CRITERION can be developed. + 2)GNORM. There is the need of a 3D Edition Visualization Technology, which will show the source in different + chronological layers, allowing the final user to visualise the evolution of hermeneutics and the stratification of the + source. Furthermore, words can become tags for all the other sources in which that specific word occurs, displaying + the various layers not only in chronological order but also according to linguistic occurrences and semantic + similarities. Such a functionality allows the data mining of large corpora: this will help scholarship in analysing + different manuscripts and early printings at the same time, with the possibility to show the (hidden) cross-references + and the mutual influences. Since religious normative texts maintain a specific internal consistency, which is shared + by different corpora within the field of Religious Studies, scholars of this domain are the most motivated to develop + a prototype like GNORM, which is bound to positively affect other domains. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + + + 96 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D3.1.1 Whitepaper on Toolkit Libraries + This whitepaper explains the reasoning and possible exploitation of the libraries + adopted by T-ReS tool, and their cross-application (implemented or envisaged) for + BM6 6 tools developed in other IT. The whitepaper also serves as guidelines for adding + new material to the library, and describes its compatibility with other software + tools, especially within RESILIENCE. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D3.1.2 Whitepaper on CRITERION + This whitepaper describes CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor for producing + digital or print-ready critical editions of sources pertaining to the field of Religious + Studies. It explains the challenges given by the high complexity of the languages + and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and how CRITERION applies the TEI + data models for encoding texts, and produces output that can be exported in a + XML or PDF format, to ensure compatibility and long-term usability (for XML) + and ease of use (for PDF). It also illustrates how the editor makes the largest + possible use of standoff properties annotations, that allow to perform nested + BM15 15 and/or multiple tagging of text portions (unlike XML). In addition, the standoff + annotator engine is added to the T-ReS toolkit library (D3.1.1). + D3.1.3 Whitepaper on GNORM + This whitepaper describes GNORM as a software for visualising the chronological + stratification of the textual and paratextual elements of a source presenting the + high complexity of the languages and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and + the related challenges. It details the corpus preparation guidelines and explains how + GNORM extracts the information from the source, annotates it as metadata, and + then visualises it for the user + + D3.1.4 Whitepaper on the results using GNORM on Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + BM17 17 to GNORM, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + + + 97 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + D3.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + CRITERION and GNORM is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in + the form of two training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE + infrastructure. + D3.3 Data publishing (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli Metadata) on + BM19 19 RESILIENCE + The database created by using GNORM on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud + Bavli corpora is published on RESILIENCE, powered by GNORM itself for + multi-layered and 3D visualisation. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly + community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and + exploring new features of normative religious texts; on the other hand, this + displays the potentialities of GNORM. + + D3.4 Prepare CRITERION and GNORM for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + The technical documentation of T-ReS library, and the technical documentation, + BM21 21 source code and binaries of CRITERION and GNORM are packaged as Open + Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM1 1 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 98 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + + + + 99 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM3 3 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + + + 100 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM4 4 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + + + + 101 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM5 5 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 102 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM7 7 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 103 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM8 8 ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 104 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM9 9 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + + + + 105 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + + + + 106 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM13 13 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 107 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM15 15 + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + + + + 108 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM17 17 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM19 19 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 109 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM21 21 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 110 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 49.846,48 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 99.692,95 + + + + + 111 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on toolkit libraries + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 244.276,89 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for CRITERION + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for GNORM + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + + + + 112 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in PRODUCTION environment; second release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in PRODUCTION environment; second release of GNORM in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 223.131,60 + + + + + 113 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 175.379,15 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: CRITERION, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.3 + + + + 114 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION, domain-specific testing of + prototype and scientific coordination and support of Analysis and Development teams; its goal is to oversee and direct the development of + CRITERION carried out in A3.2.1 and A3.3 in order to ensure that the prototype corresponds to the needs of the scientific + community. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 213.887,44 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.972,12 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 115 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/CRITERION + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in software research and prototyping for CRITERION. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 116 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Talmud Bavli, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the analysis and preparation of the Talmud Bavli corpus for GNORM; it prepares guidelines for corpus pre- + processing for GNORM, as far as the Talmud Bavli case-study is concerned; it subsequently performs the corpus building and pre- + processing for GNORM (Talmud Bavli), according to the specified guidelines; it also carries out domain-specific testing of the GNORM + prototype, with relation to the Talmud Bavli corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 117 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 3.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of developing the software required for T-ReS tools, carrying out the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design + task ensures that: + + + 118 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)CRITERION development: this task develops CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor prototype, in cooperation with the scientific + team in charge of A3.2.1. It also develops the plug-in system for CRITERION, and it produces a collation analysis plug-in. + 3)GNORM development: it develops the (meta)data extraction system for GNORM through algorithm optimisation and layout + analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of knowledge extraction + algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. It also produces the architecture of the database where + extracted properties are stored. + 4)GNORM visualisation: it develops a visualisation frontend for GNORM, to allow 3D visualisation and fruition according to users’ + needs and requirements. + 5)T-ReS, general: it develops a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, in order to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR. + All this is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.487.778,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 104.144,46 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 119 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 3.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test CRITERION and GNORM. + Although this may look as an almost final stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the + testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the + conditions of use, etc. + + Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of + CRITERION and GNORM, for the WYSIWYG editor in one case, and for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli) in the other. In addition, this activity tests the T-ReS shared library by coordinating with activities A3.3 and A3.2.1 + and with other WPs; finally, it collects feedback from users of CRITERION and GNORM prototypes, to assist in producing + documentation for the prototypes. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + + 120 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 3.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is properly run, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. + It also sets up GNORM and the databases for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli) for Continuous + Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release- + ready state. + The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. For CRITERION, it ensures that a dedicated community + forum is set up, while for T-ReS it deploys the shared library in coordination with other WPs. + Finally, it ensures that the prototypes of CRITERION and GNORM are released and published for the RESILIENCE + marketplace. + + + + 121 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 103.380,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.236,60 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 3.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 122 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary IT work for the development of T-ReS. The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic + understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. + In particular, the activity explores and evaluates text editors capable of producing critical editions for CRITERION, and evaluates + source material and suitable software tools for GNORM; it also analyses features required by a shared library for ITSERR software + tools and, elaborates prototypes for the tools; finally, it produces scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 172.500,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 136.620,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.490,67 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + + + + 123 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in algorithmic research for GNORM. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + + + + 124 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Corpus Iuris Canonici, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 8 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to: + 1) the analysis and preparation of guidelines for corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici; + 2)application of guidelines and corpus building for GNORM (Corpus iuris canonici); + 3)domain-specific supervision on the testing of the prototype with relation to the Corpus Iuris Canonici case-study. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 125 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 126 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 2.114,70 2.114,70 + + 2 BM2 113.926,37 116.041,07 + + 3 BM3 130.174,88 246.215,95 + + 4 BM4 130.174,88 376.390,83 + + 5 BM5 130.174,88 506.565,71 + + 6 BM6 130.174,88 636.740,59 + + 7 BM7 130.174,88 766.915,47 + + 8 BM8 130.174,88 897.090,35 + + 9 BM9 130.174,88 1.027.265,23 + + 10 BM10 130.174,84 1.157.440,07 + + 13 BM13 130.174,88 1.287.614,95 + + 15 BM15 130.174,88 1.417.789,83 + + 17 BM17 130.174,88 1.547.964,71 + + 19 BM19 130.174,88 1.678.139,59 + + 21 BM21 119.935,92 1.798.075,51 + + + 36 WP title + Data Centre Services + 37 WP number + 2 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 127 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + To fully serve the scientific community of Religious Studies, the most basic requirement of a RI is to provide best of breed computing + resources supported by secure and robust Data Centre services. In terms of computing resources and services, the scope of ITSERR is to + offer cost savings, scalability, high performance, economies of scale, and more. In cooperation with the RESILIENCE Data Centres + partners, CINECA and the University of Muenster, this WP will deliver IT resources and services including storage, processing power, + databases, networking, analytics and software applications over the internet. By providing these resources, ITSERR allows Italian + Religious Studies researchers to access the computational assets they need, when they need them, without needing to purchase and maintain + a physical, on-premise IT infrastructure. This provides flexible resources, faster innovation, and economies of scale. + + Like RESILIENCE, to provide Data Centre Services (DCS) ITSERR adopts the IT Infrastructure library (ITIL) 2011 approach. + ITSERR’s Operations Officer (OL) is the Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) for all DCS related matters and is supported in these + activities by the DCS operations team members. The DCS operations team will be responsible for applying ITIL-based processes and + principles when managing its activities throughout the duration of the project and during 10 years after its end. The DCS team will + interact with all WPs to organise the services and provide monthly DCS reports to the Team Leaders and the Infrastructure Manager. In + terms of services, the DCS team will participate at least to the following processes: Release and deployment management; Configuration + management; Service level management; Continuous service improvement; Availability management; Capacity management; IT service + continuity management and Access management. + + Scope and goal + The operational and security excellence of the RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure is ensured by the Data Centre (DC) Services + Operation Team and underwritten by the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE. This policy defines security and + management controls to be applied in the provision of DC services by ITSERR teams for all research projects hosted on the resilience- + ri.eu platform. This WP addresses DC security and managements aspects such as: + - Operations of development, testing and operational IT environments + - Follow-up software/hardware vulnerabilities from mainstream vulnerability databases + - Network management procedures + - Production and project services: authentication and authorisation, Access and Authentication Infrastructure (AAI) integration, asset + management, installation and configuration, data handling, vulnerability management, availability monitoring, backup configuration, + change management, user registration, etc. + - Logging and monitoring of systems’ capacity and availability, + - Laptop recommended configuration, anti-virus policy, administrator activities + - Incident/Problem Management procedure also for security events + - Backup management + - Business Continuity management: maintenance of resources for disaster recovery at any delivery location + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE supply of Data Centre Services + + Activities envisaged + A2.1 DC Services Analysis: During the first 2 months of the project, the DC Operations Team will gather the requirements in terms + of: + + + 128 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + of: + - applications hosting requirements, sizing, data and processing capacity, etc. + - project and quality management tools necessary for the follow-up of the project; + - security requirements to operate safely all ITSERR systems and data. + For all requirements gathered, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of + RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. Then DCS solutions are discussed with the various team + members and the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + + A2.2 DC Services Implementation: the DCS team orders the software licences necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services + Then the team proceeds with the installation of the solutions on the RESILIENCE Data Centre partner and starts testing the overall + service levels of the infrastructure. Here also, the security measures to be applied at infrastructural levels are set-up and put in operation. + + A2.3 DC Services Support: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP teams to + ensure a shared knowledge and the respect of the management and security services and principles. They will also assist the WP teams + during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and production). The DCS Team will be in close contact with the + RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and DCS services are used by WP1, WP3 to WP10 and WP12 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + First for all WP teams of this project, and then for the broader community of Italian DH researchers, the provision + of professional IT computing services and expertise including: + ●Authentication and Access Infrastructure services: Today users often need five to ten accounts or digital identities + in their digital research life. RESILIENCE AAI replaces different sign-in techniques for specific tools in the + RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure if there is a restriction necessary. Where agreed by existing institutions, + RESILIENCE AAI will make use of existing academic or research identities by interfacing existing systems. + ●Storage: The storage service provides initially a few PB of storage to the infrastructure projects as a technical core + service to all WPs. An easy and secure access and rights management gets implemented on top of the Resilience + AAI. + ●Hosting: The service implements Virtual Machines (VMs) per WP project so that they can move from one hosting + environment to another if a researcher wants to. This service includes for the ITSERR projects: + ○core VMs installation of Linux based stack such as LAMP. + ○The project [name] hosting is made available under [name].resilience-ri.eu. + ○the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, + change management, staff time management, etc. (See in figure WP2.1 a simplified version of the tools and their + relations within our PM and development hosting environment). + ○The WPs development, test and production environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle + management, documentation lifecycle management, etc. + ○The operation management environment including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services + availability, logging, services performance, etc. + ●Computing capacity: The computing service gives easy access to different kinds of computational resources like + shared memory systems and hadoop/spark clusters of different sizing based on the WP requirements (i.e. Machine + Learning requirements). + ●Security: Resilience as an infrastructure will be designed as a security framework in which security services are + already included such as anti-spam filters, load-balancers, request filtering (e.g. denial-of-service attacks). Due to this + approach, ITSERR reduces the efforts to be invested by each hosted research project to guarantee the security of its + project. + ●Shared knowledge: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + + + + 129 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE Data Centre Services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3). + Motivation + ITSERR intends to host a huge variety of information systems with a high impact on the Religious Studies Research + ecosystems including both EU and non-EU citizens, agencies, governments, etc. We note that for the information + systems in the scope of ITSERR, the availability, capacity and security of research data and research services is + paramount. Considering this context, we intend to design a security and service strategy embedded in Data Centre + Service delivery ensuring adherence to best of breed rules, policies and guidelines on all levels: ITSERR contract, + Work Packages, future research projects, individual researchers and citizens. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D2.1 Services Level Requirements: The Operations Leader (OL) will lead the + collection of the project services requirements from all management team + members. This information, a mandatory ITIL deliverable will be presented as + Service Level Requirements (SLR) and is an important deliverable that must be + clearly defined, documented, signed off, and understood by all project stakeholders + before the service could be delivered. Its content will cover at least the following + topics: + ●General requirements + ●Services operations requirements (e;g. deployment, infrastructure change + requests, account provisioning, etc.) + ●Requirements on the delivery of services operations (e. g. Service Level to be + provided) + ●Languages supported (i.e. for the support service desk) + ●Normal services hours (i.e. where the ITSERR team can work but also when + researchers using the RI can call the support services) + ●RI support outside of Normal services hours (i.e. On-call service, etc.) + ●Training requirements (i.e. for the ITSERR team but also for the researchers, + future users of the RI) + BM1 1 ●Security requirements + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE(M4, + M12, M24): The DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services + BM2 2 operations. They will be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + + + + 130 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + BM3 3 ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM4 4 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + + + 131 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + BM5 5 information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + BM6 6 The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + + + + 132 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM7 7 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + + + 133 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM8 8 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM9 9 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 134 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + BM10 10 ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM13 13 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + + + + 135 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + BM15 15 ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + BM17 17 ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + + + + 136 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM19 19 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + BM21 21 among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + + + + 137 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + BM1 1 ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + + + + 138 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + BM2 2 DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + + + + 139 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + BM3 3 to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + + + + 140 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + BM4 4 Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + + + + 141 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + BM5 5 obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + + + + 142 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + ll the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + BM6 6 depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + + + + 143 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + BM7 7 below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + + + + 144 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + BM8 8 copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + + + + 145 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + BM9 9 the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + + + + 146 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + BM10 10 automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + + + + 147 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + BM13 13 Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + + + + 148 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + + + + 149 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM17 17 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + + + + 150 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM19 19 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 151 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + BM21 21 All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + + + + 152 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + BM21 21 ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + + 153 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 2.114,70 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 113.926,37 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + + + 154 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 130.174,84 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + + + + 155 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 119.935,92 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 156 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + There are various investigation techniques for arriving at clearer requirements. Considering that users are often unsure about the + requirements, the support of a technical staff member is sometimes necessary. During the first months of the project, the DC Operations + Team will gather the requirements avoiding the eventual problems that can occur in collecting requirements: + ●Lack of relevance to the objectives of the service + ●Lack of clarity or ambiguity in the wording + ●Duplication between requirements + + At the end, the Service Level Requirements (See D2.1) will cover at least the following aspects: + ●ITSERR DCS plans and strategy + ●Vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the ITSERR as a Whole, and of the various WPs + ●Legislative requirements + ●Governance requirements + ●Budgeting and accounting requirements + ●Balanced scorecard + ●Service level requirements and targets + ●Service portfolio and service catalogue + ●Service review meetings + ●Customer satisfaction surveys + ●Continuous Services Improvement (CSI) initiatives already logged in the CSI register + ●Service models + + + 157 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Service models + ●Service Design Package + ●Benchmark and baseline data + ●Risk assessments and risk mitigation plans + + The Services Level Requirements document will be submitted for approval to the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders and will + be signed off before its analysis. + From the SLR accepted, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (See Deliverable + 2.2) of RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. To obtain the best services support, the ITSERR + DCS team will maintain regular contacts with the RESILIENCE DCS team during all phases of the project. + Then the DCS team starts proposing solutions in terms of software and services. These are discussed with the various team members and + the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 55.338,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.873,66 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + + + + + 158 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + DC Services Support + 49 Activity short name + 2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS team prepares documentation and training material for the WP teams to ensure a shared knowledge of the management and + security services and principles to be respected. + They will also assist the WP teams during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and set in production). + The DCS Team will be in close contact with the RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 189.819,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + + 159 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 13.287,33 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Implementation + 49 Activity short name + 2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 40 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS ITSERR team synchronises periodically with the RESILIENCE team to verify the status of the DC services and software + available on resilience-ri.eu. + From this information, the software licence necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services are ordered. + Then the DCS team proceeds with the installation of the solutions (See an example in the annexed figure WP2.1) and starts testing + their operationality. The team proceeds with the installation of the first mandatory environments including: + ●the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, change management, staff + time management, etc. + ●The WPs development environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle management, documentation lifecycle + management, etc. + ●The operation management including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services availability, logging, services performance, + etc. + + When the WPs teams will start deploying their software, a key mission of the DCS Team is to maintain operational and up-to-date the + software stack required by each WP. Among this stack is the RESILIENCE Toolkit composed of new/existing, shared and re-usable + components/services. As explained in WP3, and also in WP4 to WP10, the ITSERR Architecture and Design team will design all + WPs software solutions and will make sure that each time it is possible, an identical functionality will only be developed once and + eventually re-use existing code or software services already deployed in RESILIENCE or other RIs. During the pre-analysis of the WP + scope, the ITSERR team already identified some components that will be potentially re-used as presented in the annexed figure WP2.4. + 54 Activity budget + + + + + 160 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.435.287,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 100.470,12 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 161 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 19.224,82 19.224,82 + + 2 BM2 38.449,65 57.674,47 + + 3 BM3 38.449,65 96.124,12 + + 4 BM4 28.733,62 124.857,74 + + 5 BM5 19.017,59 143.875,33 + + 6 BM6 19.017,59 162.892,92 + + 7 BM7 19.017,59 181.910,51 + + 8 BM8 19.017,59 200.928,10 + + 9 BM9 19.017,59 219.945,69 + + 10 BM10 19.017,58 238.963,27 + + 13 BM13 19.017,59 257.980,86 + + 15 BM15 19.017,59 276.998,45 + + 17 BM17 19.017,59 296.016,04 + + 19 BM19 19.017,59 315.033,63 + + 21 BM21 19.017,59 334.051,22 + + + 36 WP title + Data Management Services + 37 WP number + 12 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 162 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP12 works toward the provision to the Research Community of Data Management Services and Reference Data Model services, while + working in full compliance with the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services. + + Scope + As a research infrastructure, ITSERR aims at the spreading of Open Science as a core part of its mission. Our mission is globally to + spread knowledge within an open, FAIR and interoperable ecosystem that is digital AND physical, while respecting environmental goals + (i.e. by favouring activities in person, by choosing zero-impact service providers for digital services, etc). Of course RI users are the only + ones accountable for the data they produce, but recourse to open standards, both in publications and other outputs (data, software etc.) will + be strongly encouraged by ITSERR wherever applicable. In addition, the implementation of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, + Reusable) compliant practices will be mandatory for all research data stored by ITSERR users/researchers. ITSERR therefore intends + to provide to the Research Community Data Management Services to: + - provide advice, guidelines, training and consultancy on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability + - encourage all its users to pursue Open Science practices by favouring i.e. open licences + - release all its publications (intended as documents produced by the consortium for the scope of the RI) in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposit them in a trusted repository + - publish all software engineered by ITSERR as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license types, and deposit + them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab) + - help applicants generating/collecting data and/or other research outputs (except for publications) by asking them to provide a maximum + half page on how the data/research outputs will be managed in line with the FAIR principles. The ITSERR team will then guide them + to the best possible implementation of the FAIR principles for their data. + + ITSERR, as a research infrastructure, does not primarily generate research data or research outputs in itself. Instead, it allows the + collection, the transformation of, and the distribution of data and metadata about research inputs/outputs. As a collector and distributor + of diverse datasets, ITSERR will interface a diversity of users: not only researchers, students or professors that are touched by the domain + of Religious Studies, but also different actors, such as the world of education, religious leaders and representatives, local or even national + political institutions, the press, and any citizen interested in developing an understanding of religions. To tackle this diversity of data, their + usage and the heterogeneity of potential users, ITSERR will deliver Reference Data Model services aiming at: + - Harmonising datasets of different provenance and with different target audiences by providing a RESILIENCE Reference Data + Model maintenance, being supported by data models and standards highly supported by the research community such as schema.org + - Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially thanks to the harmonisation + mentioned above + - Adopting for all WPs, the 4 layers EOSC interoperability framework: technical, semantic, organisational and legal + - In situations where different data licenses collide, ITSERR relies also on legal advice to tackle such issues for its users + - For research data including information about persons (e.g. from survey results, or user activities) that cannot be anonymized, ITSERR + will make sure that it is not made openly available and will be protected in accordance with GDPR + - Delivering guidance and training to researchers on data harmonisation and interoperability + - Improving the support to researchers by continuously collecting their feedback. + + + + 163 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + For its own scope, ITSERR can collect research data (e.g. in the form of surveys, services usage logs, etc.), and output can be generated in + the form, for instance, of software and/or data workflows for trainings or other activities. To this end, the ITSERR teams ensure: + - That data collected is treated according to the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" + - The findability and accessibility of all data and documents with a public status related to the design of the RI, using trusted repositories + - The adoption of Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license + In the case of data workflows, interoperable formats and standards are adopted. + + All ITSERR research and information technology outputs are deposited in git repositories and in trusted repositories (such as Zenodo) + respectively. + + The WP12 strengthens the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services (See Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3 in Annex 1). + + Activities + A12.1 Data Management Plan (DMP) creation: the Data Management Plan is a prescriptive deliverable designed to ensure that all + data hosted on the ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, accessible and reusable) and interoperable in the sense of the + EOSC interoperability framework. All activities performed here are to ensure that the DMP is aligned with RESILIENCE and + ITSERR DMP data requirements. + + A12.2 Reference Data Services: ITSERR must warranty that religious studies researchers have access to the information that they need + for their work, that the quality of the information is maintained at an acceptable level, that data models are syntactically and semantically + interoperable and that legal aspects in the areas of privacy, security, and confidentiality are warranted. A dedicated team of data + specialists works to establish RESILIENCE data management strategy, an agreement on the supportive technologies, the description of + the information management processes and the adopted data standards, data models and policies. + + A12.3 Data Services Execution: This activity is the implementation of the Data Management Strategy published and agreed upon in + A10.2. including tasks such as: + - Identify data sources. + - Identify data stewardship and ownership + - Data matching + - Data profiling + - Update the Reference Data Model, if necessary + - Advises on data interoperability + - Test the data interoperability + - Recommendations to adapt the system(s) data producers and consumers for an improved interoperability + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + All WPs + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + Provision of professional Data Management services for the Italian Religious Studies researchers. By using the + ITSERR data hosting platform, the researchers can benefit the following services: + ●Advices, guidelines and trainings material on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability, etc.; + ●Find and submit publications from the overall RESILIENCE research ecosystem in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposited in a trusted repository for long term persistence; + ●Find specialised data management software for Religious Studies as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software + Foundation license types, and deposited them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab); + ●Consultancy and expertise provision on research data management; + ●Guidance on harmonising research datasets and making them interoperable; + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + + + + 164 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + thanks to the harmonisation mentioned above; + ●Involving, where possible, citizens themselves in the production of knowledge (e.g. through surveys, interactive + seminars or educational activities, etc.). + The WP strengthens the RESILIENCE reference architecture services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM2 2 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM3 3 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM4 4 - + + + + + 165 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM5 5 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM6 6 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM7 7 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + BM8 8 ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + + + + 166 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM13 13 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + BM15 15 ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + + + + 167 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + BM21 21 data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + BM1 1 Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + + + + 168 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM1 1 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM2 2 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + BM3 3 the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 169 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM4 4 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM5 5 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + + + + 170 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM6 6 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + BM7 7 ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + + + + 171 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM8 8 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM9 9 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + BM10 10 data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + + + + 172 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM13 13 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + BM15 15 gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + + + + 173 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM17 17 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM19 19 ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + + + + 174 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM21 21 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 19.224,82 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + + + + 175 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 28.733,62 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + + + + 176 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 19.017,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + + + + 177 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Final version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Management Plan + 49 Activity short name + 12.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 6 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 178 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Management Plan (DMP) is intended to be a living document in which information can be made available on a finer level of + granularity through updates as the implementation of the project progresses and when significant changes occur. + Additionally, no single strategy can cover the integration and interoperation of the diverse datasets to be included in ITSERR: for these + reasons, the Data Management Plan is accurately designed to ensure that data that enters the ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, + accessible and reusable). + The following activities will be performed: + ●Analysis of RESILIENCE Data Management Plan + ●Collecting data services requirements on data produced and collected by the ITA WPs + ●Virtual information sessions on proper data handling with RESILIENCE Team, incl. GDPR, Open Science, FAIR principles + ●Eventual updates to RESILIENCE Data management plan + ●Presentation of RESILIENCE DMP and Q&A to all WP leaders (incl. FAIR, Open Science principles, tools, etc.) + ●Reviews and revision of RESILIENCE DMP proposed to RESILIENCE Team + ●Data Management Services (DMS) + ●Data Services Brainstorming + ●Preparation Workshops + ●ITSERR Data Management Services Analysis + ●Set-up of the ITSERR data handling and organisation + ●Set-up long term archiving and publication of core Resilience data according to Open Science and FAIR principles for ITSERR. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 54.482,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 179 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.813,77 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Reference Data Services + 49 Activity short name + 12.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + ITSERR has the objective to re-use and set-up a Reference Data Model by developing a baseline operational data model and maintain + it as a long term Reference Data Model for data managed on the RESILIENCE ecosystem. + Our Reference Data Model is build as such: + ●Collecting (Meta)Data requirements from all stakeholders + ●Building out the infrastructure to support a reference data model + ●Creation of a process for updating the model (including data governance approval) + ●Use the model content to organise and structure data hosted on RESILIENCE + ●Keep refining the model while supporting new projects on the platform. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 106.646,40 € + + + + + 180 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.465,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Services Execution + 49 Activity short name + 12.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Services Execution is the implementation of a series of artefacts(software, guidelines, training, etc) helping each work package + to implement adequately their Data Management LifeCycle (DMLC). This activity will perform the following tasks: + ●Selection and prioritisation of services to be implemented for ITSERR: based on the WP data management requirements, we’ll identify + a set of tools to be created and/or set-up to implement the DMLC + ●Architecture and design of the software components implementing the data management services to be hosted within RESILIENCE + ●Development and testing of the services + + + 181 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Development and testing of the services + ●Operation: the Data Centre Services team ensures that all artefacts produced, transformed and managed by the tools are available + 24/7, that the back-up of data is performed and that the project capacity is sufficiently sized (ie: memory, space, processing). + ●Documentation writing for RESILIENCE: this documentation becomes part of the RESILIENCE knowledge management + repository + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 151.068,60 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.574,80 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 182 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 34.819,76 34.819,76 + + 2 BM2 69.639,51 104.459,27 + + 3 BM3 148.779,46 253.238,73 + + 4 BM4 153.140,02 406.378,75 + + 5 BM5 153.140,02 559.518,77 + + 6 BM6 153.140,02 712.658,79 + + 7 BM7 153.140,02 865.798,81 + + 8 BM8 153.140,02 1.018.938,83 + + 9 BM9 153.140,02 1.172.078,85 + + 10 BM10 183.006,46 1.355.085,31 + + 13 BM13 153.140,02 1.508.225,33 + + 15 BM15 153.140,02 1.661.365,35 + + 17 BM17 153.140,02 1.814.505,37 + + 19 BM19 153.140,02 1.967.645,39 + + 21 BM21 156.233,63 2.123.879,02 + + + 36 WP title + DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum + 37 WP number + 4 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 183 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 7 Dipartimento di Ingegneria CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + DaMSym is intended as a software prototype for applying text understanding techniques to the investigation of issues on texts with a high + density of semantic information, determined by particular characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. Adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities, DaMSym benefits from an ideal case-study presented by Religious Studies, namely the translations of the Nicene- + Constantinopolitan Creed, a text with a strong dogmatic claim. DaMSym is meant to improve (and, in a virtuous circle, take advantage + from) the capabilities of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure, by bringing together cultural, historical and theological factors to + produce a new type of semantic analysis tool, capable of producing novel, domain-related knowledge, providing scholars with new insights. + + Scope and goal + The recent developments in Artificial Intelligence ensuing from the so-called connectionist turn and the development of Deep Neural + Networks have enabled new approaches to text mining and computational text analysis and understanding. In particular, the new + techniques of vector semantics and word embeddings provide new affordances for the establishment of the contextual meaning of single + words or phrases in a text. As well, recently developed Deep Neural Networks based on the fully-attentive paradigm, like BERT and + GPT-x has enabled a wide range of textual understanding and generation applications, from text classification to entity extraction and + machine translation, even in presence of a limited training set (few-shot or zero-shot settings). + The traditional study of Biblical concordances found its first computer-generated production as early as in 1957 and several search and + study systems for the Bible have been implemented since. While research on the Bible (and other sacred texts) can be pursued by improving + the implementation of tools for textual analysis, there is a type of texts relevant to Religious Studies that requires different tools and + different types of analyses. This type of texts is exemplified by the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. The Creed, along with other credal + formulas, presents a series of specific features: + - It is a “vehicular” text: its purpose is to transmit a formula of faith, with all its wide-ranging implications. + - It has a dogmatic claim: it has characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + + + 184 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + spectrum than other written texts (e.g. involving the non-literate). For the same reason, it has been translated extensively (often even + multiple times) into various languages, from the 4th century AD down to present times. + - It is relatively short, but also coherent in and of itself as well as with all its religious implications (theological, liturgical, doctrinal etc.). + - It serves (and served) a catechetical purpose. + At the same time (and for the same reasons) it can be (and often is) adapted to the target culture to a much greater degree than the sacred + texts. This means that the translated text incorporates semantic values from the target culture, while transmitting other semantic elements + from the language (or culture) of origin. + Because of these features, the aim of this WP is to develop software and algorithms for applying text understanding techniques to the + investigation of semantic textual issues, with the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a case study, adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities. The reasons for the methodological shift from conventional probabilistic methods to a machine learning approach have + already been highlighted in recent research. While in conventional probabilistic methods the choice was for topic modelling applications, a + machine learning approach envisages the use of more advanced approaches for textual understanding, ranging from the word2vec model for + word embeddings to more powerful approaches like GPT-x and BERT. Through a vector semantics approach, it is possible to achieve a + form of “computational close reading” that allows disambiguation and the detection of diachronic lexical semantic change. On the other + hand, BERT is one of the state-of-the-art models for text understanding, and allows to understand and classify text by considering an + entire sentence or an entire document, while generative approaches like GPT-3 can perform more sophisticated tasks like machine + translation between several languages, question answering and summarization even in presence of limited training data, thanks to the few- + shot abilities it exhibits. + Overall, the recent connectionist turn in Artificial Intelligence enables the direct application of computational analysis to lexical textual + phenomena and significantly enhances the effectiveness of digital interpretive and editorial practises. The critical and historical investigation + of the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into several languages provides a fitting case study in this respect. + The specific meaning of a word or phrase in a text can be inferred from the contextual analysis of the specific corpus of the author’s + writings and of coeval relevant literature. This is particularly significant for the examination of the diachronic lexical change among the + successive translations of a text: in this case study, the translations of the Creed are compared with a corpus that is contemporary to the + translation itself, and is of course in the same language as the translation. This allows the comparison of different interpretations of one + and the same textual expression, across different languages and alphabets, providing essential information for the advancement of + Religious Studies but also for other connected domains (such as philological criticism). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A4.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of digital and non-digital texts of the Creed, in original ancient languages and + in translations; analysis and recognition of word embedding tools to be adapted in later stages; formulation of scientific, user and technical + requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + + A4.2.1: Scientific preparation/general: validation of technical and scientific requirements and scientific coordination/support for other + activities in the WP. + A4.2.2: Scientific preparation/case-study: corpus-building and corpus preparation for DaMSym. + A4.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation. + A4.2.4: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, Greek and Latin texts. + A4.2.5: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, translations. + + A4.3: Development: training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding, optimisation and fine tuning of word embedding tool(s), + development of an APIs (for storing extracted properties in a graph database, for automatic standoff annotation, for machine translation, + for text classification); implementation of functions for the standoff platform, to present researchers and other users with an accessible + software prototype. + + A4.4: Test: testing of DaMSym in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation) and in its pre-release form (as a + full software protype for analysis of the Creed). Testing of DaMSym among a sample of researchers, for user and scientific feedback. + + A4.5: Operation: DaMSym goes into production. Running DaMSym on the Creed corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + + + 185 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The result of the WP is a combined software that allows to analyse and annotate corpora to understand, classify and + evaluate contextual semantics of any given text, in different languages and with special attention to uncommon and + ancient languages. This is especially useful in analysing translations of texts where semantics play a crucial role, such + as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The WP produces a prototype capable of applying word embedding on + multiple languages, operating machine translation of words, sentences and texts inside the textual corpora, + classifying and understanding text, according to the specific needs highlighted by humanities experts, executing + standoff annotation and visualising properties in a graph database. DaMSym is used in the critical case study of the + Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but can be applied to test-cases with high conceptual normativity presented by all + Humanities. + The prototype strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated + to the enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Religious Studies are characterised by text presenting a peculiar conceptual normativity, and the existing corpora + analysis tools do not allow for a full, in-depth understanding of the relationships between the text and its corpus, + and smaller and bigger corpora. Texts like the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople need to be placed in their linguistic, + cultural, chronological and theological framework to be fully interpreted semantically. This type of investigation + must make use of a vast amount of data, of diverse nature and complexity. To fully exploit the existence of such + diverse and extensive data, suitable digital tools are needed. To produce such tools a synergy between different types + of expertise can only be developed within the ecosystem of RESILIENCE, which is a domain-specific Research + Infrastructure. + The resulting prototype for textual understanding and data mining, however, can be applied even beyond the case + study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: the software developed by the WP make it possible to assess the + value as well as the semantic and cultural context of each translation, taking into account multi-disciplinary factors + (here represented by historical, theological and even liturgical elements) that are otherwise missed in purely text- + related or language-related tools. From a more technical point of view, the use of state-of-the-art neural networks + for textual understanding, specifically re-trained for the use-case, and a graph database allows a visual representation + of the words in context while resulting in a better disambiguation of word meanings which is the main point of the + research. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + + + + 186 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D4.1.1 Whitepaper on DaMSym + This whitepaper describes the reasoning and possible exploitation of DaMSym, + intended as a software that performs several functions: + 1)word embedding extraction + 2)machine translation + BM13 13 3)text classification and document understanding + 4)standoff properties annotation + 5)properties visualisation. + Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes DaMSym in + its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in subsequent + phases. + + D4.1.2 Whitepaper on the results using DaMSym on Nicene-Constantinopolitan + Creed + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to DaMSym, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating DaMSym + on the Creed corpus. As such, this deliverable not only validates DaMSym’s + prototype, but also provides researchers with new material for their studies + + BM17 17 - + + D4.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + DaMSym, and also during the preparation of D4.1.1 and D4.1.2 is systematised + BM19 19 and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a training package to be integrated + with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The package includes and use-case samples + (drawn from D4.1.2), as well as templates. + + D4.3 Data publishing (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum metadata) on + RESILIENCE + The database resulting from the application of DaMSym to the Creed corpus is + published, powered by DaMSym for browsing, consultation and user-only + annotation, through RESILIENCE. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research + acquisitions and exploring the connections between religious texts and their + BM21 21 commentaries; on the other hand, this displays the potentialities of DaMSym, + setting a new standard for tools dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also + for other domains. + + D4.4 Prepare DaMSym for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of DaMSym are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + + + + 187 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM1 1 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM2 2 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 188 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM3 3 ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + + + + 189 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM4 4 ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + + + + 190 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM5 5 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 191 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + + + + 192 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM8 8 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + + + + 193 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM9 9 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM10 10 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 194 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM13 13 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + + + + 195 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM15 15 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + + + + 196 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM17 17 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM19 19 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 197 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + + + + 198 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 34.819,76 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 69.639,51 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 148.779,46 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + + + 199 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on DaMSym; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 200 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 183.006,46 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; second release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 156.233,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 201 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 202 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 7 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the Greek and Latin texts of the Creed, to prepare them for analysis through + DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.652,28 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations + + + + 203 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the texts of the Creed in the translations defined in A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, to prepare + them for analysis through DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + + + + 204 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation; in a second stage, it oversees + the development activity (A4.3) in its realisation/adaptation of software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation, + ensuring that it remains in line with the scientific principles formulated in A4.1. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 205 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/general + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise. + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities and it validates technical and + scientific requirements, with the assistance of domain-specific experts for IT and for Religious Studies and by coordinating with other WP + activities. + It checks that software development and corpus preparation are performed in accordance with the technical and domain-specific + requirements, and it assists in updating these requirements when needed. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 206 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 27.912,56 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.641,33 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 4.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + 207 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up DaMSym and the database on the Creed for + Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always + in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for DaMSym, based on the works of A4.1-A4.4. + 2)It provides that DaMSym goes into production and that the database for the Creed powered by DaMSym is published for + RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + It provides that DaMSym’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + + + + 208 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 4.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test DaMSym. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. + The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their + problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, who + provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of DaMSym, for research on the two case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, + updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products + offered to the researchers. + In particular, DaMSym is tested first in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation), in order to assess KPIs and + assist the Development activity (A4.3), then DaMSym is tested its pre-release form (as a full software tool for analysis of the Creed), for + collecting user and scientific feedback. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,04 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 209 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 4.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity aims at finalising all the work validated by the previous phases, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this task brings different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and lead to smarter, more + sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + + + + 210 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)Training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding on the target languages, collecting training data from freely-available sources and + from the digital texts collected in A4.2 + 3)Optimisation and fine-tuning of the most performant toolkit component for word embedding on original texts, and on the translations + (at least 5 languages in 3 different non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets). + 4)Development and training of text understanding and classification tools for the digital texts collected in A4.2, on the basis of an + assessment of existing neural network architectures (e.g. GPTx-like) + 5)Development of an API that turns word embedding vector clusters into properties stored in a graph database (such as Neo4J). + 6)Development of an API for automatically annotating the vector clusters contained in the database as standoff properties in texts of the + corpus. + 7)Development of a machine translation API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 8)Development of a text classification API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 9)Implementation of functions for the standoff properties platform, in synergy with the T-ReS library, to be performed on the whole set of + different language corpora, and finalisation of DaMSym as an accessible software prototype for researchers and other users. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 800.538,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 56.037,65 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 211 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 4.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary work for the development of DaMSym. + The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This + involves consulting researchers and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the corpus of interest related to + the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, through engaging with researchers to produce a recognition of the corpus, analysing the digital and + non digital texts to be included and expressing the research issues involved. + To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this activity, for the corpus on the Creed and for + DaMSym as a software. + In parallel, digital resources for the languages involved are analysed, and tools for the required text processing functions (word embedding + extraction, properties database organisation, standoff properties platform) are explored. + This results in a formulation of technical requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 212 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/case-study + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of collecting the corpus for the Creed and its translations, ensuring that each text (or translation) of the Creed + can be compared with a sizeable corpus of literature of the same language and of the same period as each text (or translation). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 213 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 277.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 214 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 35.919,24 35.919,24 + + 2 BM2 71.838,48 107.757,72 + + 3 BM3 142.316,00 250.073,72 + + 4 BM4 186.551,53 436.625,25 + + 5 BM5 186.551,53 623.176,78 + + 6 BM6 186.551,53 809.728,31 + + 7 BM7 186.551,53 996.279,84 + + 8 BM8 186.551,53 1.182.831,37 + + 9 BM9 186.551,53 1.369.382,90 + + 10 BM10 186.551,57 1.555.934,47 + + 13 BM13 186.551,53 1.742.486,00 + + 15 BM15 186.551,53 1.929.037,53 + + 17 BM17 186.551,53 2.115.589,06 + + 19 BM19 186.551,53 2.302.140,59 + + 21 BM21 206.264,77 2.508.405,36 + + + 36 WP title + Digital Maktaba + 37 WP number + 5 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 215 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + Digital Maktaba (in Arabic "maktaba", "library": the "place where books are located", henceforth DM) is conceived as a response to + the need to create multi-alphabet digital catalogues for the management of works in non-Latin alphabets and aims to become an + instrument exportable to other realities than that of the religious sciences where it was born. + DM is an important addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem because it is intended to offer a helpful and innovative service to + libraries specialised in religious studies that need to manage cultural heritage data in non-latin alphabets. For this reason some resources + of the FSCIRE Library in Palermo constitute a rather unique and exclusive case study which includes specialised knowledge, non-latin + alphabets (e.g. Arabic) and multilingual variation in a comprehensive digital corpus of documents. From this point DM accepts the + challenge posed by non-latin alphabets in matters of data extraction, big data management and the challenge of librarianship and + cataloguing at large. + + To date, for example, the Italian National Library Service does not provide for such a possibility yet and also imposes ineffective + transliteration systems in contrast to the adjustments being made in other countries and the standards set by the International Standard + Bibliographic Description. The choice of systems to be adopted is still subject to the influence of the ideological element and the cultural and + political dimension of the choice itself. + + The aim is to establish procedures for the extraction, management of libraries and archives and to develop virtuous models in the field of + cataloguing that can accommodate texts written in non-Latin alphabets, starting with the case of the Arabic alphabet. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A5.1 Analysis. This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital + Maktaba, and setting the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + T5.1.1 Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the historical-critical, + linguistic perspective + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + + + + 216 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + - OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + - text mining techniques + - long term preservation of digital documents techniques + - big data management tools/techniques + - (interpretable) machine learning techniques + + A5.2.1 Scientific preparation/OCR: Definition of text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; + exploiting object fusion techniques based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools + A5.2.2 Scientific preparation/Extraction: Definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + exploiting multilingual resources + exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition + A5.2.3 Scientific preparation/Database Architecture: Definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the + extracted catalogue data and metadata, to be successively implemented in A5.3. + A5.2.4 Scientific preparation/Validation: Supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, + both on samples of materials found in WP1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + + A5.3 Development: this activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and + Supervised Cataloguing, performing the following tasks: + T5.3.1 design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques for interfacing + / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + - Long term preservation practices + - Big data management / distributed + T5.3.2 definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + T5.3.3 design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + T5.3.4 definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and interpretable) ML + algorithms: + - to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + - to automate publication type recognition + - to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + T5.3.5 Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in WP1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + A5.4 Test : this activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the + following tasks: + T4.1 Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + T4.2 Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + T4.3 Use case workshop + + A5.5 Operations: A web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project + Digital Maktaba is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for + publishing in RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + outcome + The aim of the WP is to ultimately create a supervised intelligent cataloguing tool prototype. Advanced search + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + + + + 217 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + information required and make searches more efficient and effective w.r.t. typical cataloguing tools. Intelligent and + AI-based techniques will also have a prominent role: intelligent assistance features will be designed and implemented + in order to bring new levels of assistance to the cataloguing process. Data entering will be supported by suggestions + derived from user feedback and previously entered data; supervised machine learning models will enable automatic + publication type recognition and provide a systematisation and classification of data according to the topographic + classification of the FSCIRE library. The design of incremental ML algorithms will ensure that the prototype can + "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use. + + DM strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + The information retrieval and text extraction fields on Arabic scripts have made huge strides in the last decades, but + there have not been many projects aimed at exploiting them for the curation of new and innovative digital libraries. + In 2009 the Alexandria library announced the creation of the Arabic Digital Library as part of the DAR project + (Digital Assets Repository), employing a sophisticated OCR system for the Arabic language. Other projects are + Arabic Collections Online (ACO), a publicly available digital library of public domain Arabic language content, and + the British Library projects, focused toward the digitization of handwritten Arabic and Persian manuscripts. All + these projects target only a part of the languages considered in DigitalMaktaba and aim at the pure digitization of a + (smaller) library of books, often with consistent manual work. + Focusing on text and metadata extraction tools available in state of the art, most of existing OCR / text acquisition + systems do not offer consistent and high quality results on all the languages we plan to consider in this project. Most + tools require manual work (batch process is not always possible), and none of them returns all the rich information + and metadata necessary to our project goal. Instead, our goal in this project is to obtain an intelligent (and + automated) system producing high quality outputs on the different languages and with a rich metadata content, + minimising the manual work required for cataloguing. + This is especially relevant since now even the smallest libraries must adapt acquisitions to the needs of culturally + heterogeneous users and are often unable to do so due to the impossibility of managing this data. Hence the urgency + of a global sharing of multicultural heritage. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + D5.1.1 Whitepaper on new algorithms + This whitepaper describes the developed algorithms for automatic text recognition, + metadata and knowledge extraction (A5.2). In particular, it details: + BM7 7 ○A prototype of algorithms for automatic text recognition. + ○A prototype of algorithms for metadata extraction. + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + + + 218 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + D5.1.2 Whitepaper on the software DIGITAL MAKTABA + This whitepaper describes the Digital Maktaba prototype, in its Data Management, + Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing features. In particular, it details: + ○A database design report + BM17 17 ○A prototype of advanced search techniques + ○A prototype of web user interface + ○A prototype of intelligent assistance ML techniques + ○A final report with description of the integrated engineered software prototype. + ○A validation of the final prototype, with a use case. + + D5.3 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + Digital Maktaba is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + BM19 19 package includes a use-case sample (drawn from D5.1.2), as well as templates. + + D5.4 Data publishing on RESILIENCE + The web portal for Digital Maktaba, with video and content to report on the + progress of the project Digital Maktaba is published on RESILIENCE. + + D5.5 Prepare DIGITAL MAKTABA for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of Digital Maktaba are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM1 1 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 219 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + + + + 220 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM3 3 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM4 4 ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + + + + 221 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM5 5 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM6 6 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 222 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM7 7 ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + + + + 223 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM8 8 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM9 9 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + + + + 224 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + + + + 225 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM13 13 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM15 15 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 226 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM17 17 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + + + 227 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM19 19 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + + + + 228 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 35.919,24 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 71.838,48 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 142.316,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis (scenario, OCR and text mining tools) + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 229 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis (OCR and text mining tools applied to DigitalMaktaba) + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 186.551,57 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 230 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST + environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 206.264,77 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + + + + 231 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/OCR + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity defines text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; it also explores exploiting object fusion + techniques, based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools, in order to maximise the efficiency of the + Development team. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 232 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, + travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Extraction + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 233 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The goal of this activity is the definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + ●Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + ●exploiting multilingual resources + ●exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 21.016,80 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 179.340,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + + + + 234 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 5.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity ensures that Digital Maktaba goes into operation and is properly set up, and that, from a data management perspective, big + data management techniques and tools are properly applied to the database for storing the extracted data and metadata. Special focus is + given to the data interchange and long-term preservation aspects, in order to allow data interchange with catalogue data from other + libraries and make the managed data readable and usable also on a long-term basis. + Finally, a web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project Digital Maktaba + is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for publishing in the + RESILIENCE marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 318.827,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 235 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 22.317,94 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 5.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the following tasks: + ●T5.4.1 [M 24-26] Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + ●T5.4.2 [M 26-28] Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + ●T5.4.3 [M 28-30] Use case workshop + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + + 236 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 5.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing, + performing the following tasks: + ●T5.3.1 [M 14-18] design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques + for interfacing / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + ○Long term preservation practices + ○Big data management / distributed + ●T5.3.2 [M16-20] definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + + + 237 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + ●T5.3.4 [M16-24] definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and + interpretable) ML algorithms: + ○to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + ○to automate publication type recognition + ○to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + ●T5.3.5 [M 25-26] Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in A5.1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + ITSERR development activity is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 829.775,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 58.084,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 238 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Validation + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, both on samples of + materials found in A5.1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 239 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 5.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital Maktaba, and setting + the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + ●T5.1.1 [M 1-6] Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the + historical-critical, linguistic perspective + ●T5.1.2 [M 1-6] Preliminary recognition of: + ○OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + ○text mining techniques + ○long term preservation of digital documents techniques + ○big data management tools/techniques + ○(interpretable) machine learning techniques + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + + + + 240 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 171.810,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.026,69 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Database Architecture + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 241 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity is tasked with the definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the extracted catalogue data + and metadata. The database, according to the specifications designed in this activity, is to be successively implemented in A5.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 151.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 242 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 50.134,56 50.134,56 + + 2 BM2 100.269,12 150.403,68 + + 3 BM3 167.994,00 318.397,68 + + 4 BM4 172.354,59 490.752,27 + + 5 BM5 172.354,59 663.106,86 + + 6 BM6 172.354,59 835.461,45 + + 7 BM7 172.354,59 1.007.816,04 + + 8 BM8 172.354,59 1.180.170,63 + + 9 BM9 172.354,59 1.352.525,22 + + 10 BM10 172.354,58 1.524.879,80 + + 13 BM13 152.354,59 1.677.234,39 + + 15 BM15 152.354,59 1.829.588,98 + + 17 BM17 152.354,59 1.981.943,57 + + 19 BM19 152.354,59 2.134.298,16 + + 21 BM21 145.022,22 2.279.320,38 + + +36 WP title + YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction +37 WP number + 6 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 243 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + +40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + YASMINE is a visual-semantic metascraper that combines semantic and mapping layers in order to extract knowledge from a specific + site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific processing. As such, + YASMINE is a significant addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem, especially as far as Search & Find research-enhancing + services are concerned: in fact it incorporates the ability of scraping and enriching visual and audio data by using Computer Vision and + Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that is converted into metadata. YASMINE is designed + for two purposes that are unique to religious studies and are described below: the Sanctuaria case-study, and the Plorabunt case-studies, + dedicated to religious shrines network and to the prayerful killed in terrorist attacks since 1982 respectively. + + Scope and goal + There are fields of research in Religious Studies whose study can be undertaken because of the existence of contemporary sources outside + traditional archival venues, but is slowed down by the lack of tools to make them available. ITSERR can assist RESILIENCE in + overcoming this by developing a prototype whose software components, using artificial intelligence, can search for data and extract + knowledge from it, and then analyse, categorise and order information related to the research topic. + The main issue is posed by the fact that the web offers a plethora of data: structured or unstructured, stored in multiple formats (i.e. texts + from XML/HTML, PDF,... Images from png, jpg, webp, etc), implemented using different technologies (static documents, dynamic + documents from CMS, API, JavaScript, etc). This heterogeneity in the web sources makes it difficult for scientists to collect, clean, + analyse, structure and organise data in ways compliant with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). + YASMINE drastically reduces the pain of finding and scraping web sources and increases the power of the scientist in creating high + quality disciplinary corpora from web sources. This will be supported by a multi-encoding, multi-lingual, multi-format and pluri-semantic + architecture to adapt the solution to the needs of the researcher. + ITSERR intends to explore two technological paths offering scientists a technical choice in terms of learning capacity, scalability, + architectural flexibility and adaptability: + YASMINE is a prototype of an open source meta-scraper with a highly modular and scalable architecture to be easily confronted to + + + + 244 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + extract very specific knowledge for various scientific projects, disciplines, etc. It will be composed of three engines: + - a semantic (structure) analyser to easily read and interpret any web data sources and create a reusable semantic layer allowing to + interpret and extract automatically the data of the web source. The semantic layer can be enriched manually by the scientist for a fine- + tuned data structure discovery and will be recorded within a semantic layer database for continuous improvement of the capacity of + YASMINE to automatically and better discover and understand any web data source. + - a data mapper: will propose the scientists with automated solutions to interpret the data discovered within the semantic layer and map + them to output data objects. This is the data mapping layer; + - a meta-scraper: supported by its multi-format, encoding, etc. capacities, using the semantic and data mapping layers to extract + knowledge from a specific site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific + processing. Semantic and data mapping layers would be part of a FAIR based repository to allow recurrent web data sources exploration + to keep the data up-to-date and share this interpretation data with the research community. + The developed metascraper, YASMINE, is then tested on two test cases, that are particularly relevant because they offer complex + research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and + read together, but which religious-historical research can no longer ignore. The two test cases, that already possess a starting database that + has been worked on, are Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, described below: + a) the case of Sanctuaria: this case study applies to the large number of shrines with religious significance and to the routes and network + that connect them. While projects addressing singular networks of sites and their connecting routes do exist, they are generally limited in + chronology and scope, and they do not integrate new knowledge extracted from the web, but limit themselves to systematising existing + knowledge. YASMINE, applied to this case study, has instead the goal of producing new knowledge about the shrines and their + connection by scraping the web for information. + b) the case of Plorabunt, a database of the prayerful killed in places of worship, worldwide, since 1982. The compilation of such a + database poses significant challenges: information ranges from the identification of the places, dates of the religious attacks, names of the + victims, names of the killers, to the storage of available digitised sources - i.e. from archives, libraries, international and local associations’ + web sites, journals, social network pages, etc. To this respect, the wealth of information available on the web, as a whole, is useless to the + researchers: the data is not ordered nor manageable in terms of scholarly investigation, and must therefore be used piecemeal. On the + contrary, appropriate web scraping and Artificial Intelligence tools for textual understanding can extract information efficiently, giving to + the researchers access to new sources, new databases and new frameworks for their activity. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A6.1: Analysis: in this activity, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts and Religious Studies researchers committed to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt test cases. + + A6.2.1: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Plorabunt: specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.2: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria: specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: On the software development side, algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping + are experimented and researched for use and optimisation within YASMINE. + A6.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: For general scientific preparation and coordination, the material experimented in A6.2.2 + and collected in A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between + A6.2.1 and A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. + + A6.3: Development: maintenance of the RESILIENCE software components library; optimisation and development of algorithms and + software for automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data, for layout analysis, for semantic structure analysis and for + data mapping; the tools are combined into YASMINE + + A6.4:Test: testing of YASMINE (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security testing, researchers community + testing, etc.), with reference to the Sanctuaria and on the Plorabunt test cases, and improved depending on feedback. + + A6.5: Operations: Creation of a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, with the expertise developed during the test + phase, released in RESILIENCE. Running YASMINE on the use case Pilgrimage, and population of the relative database; running + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + + + 245 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + marketplace. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + YASMINE, as a visual-semantic metascraper, is an unprecedented prototype that is capable of extracting specialised + information from the web, ordering it in semantic and mapping layers, and making it reusable as part of a FAIR + based repository. This allows recurrent web data sources exploration to keep the data up-to-date and share this + interpretation data with the research community. YASMINE is applied to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt case-studies. + Both attempt to architect two reusable but specialised AIs to extract specific knowledge, to use Machine Learning + methods, tools and techniques, and to perform the inception of the AI learning by “feeding” the AI with the + semantic layers discovered by YASMINE. + ITSERR intends to compare the quality of data extraction that can be achieved by pushing both technological + approaches. + Some specificities of this WP are that both projects, Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, should : + ●Support for multiple web data sources technologies/formats (XML/HTML, API, JS, etc.) + ●Support of multiple languages + ●Support of multiple alphabet/encoding + ●Support of multiple ontologies/semantics + ●Support of multiple output formats + YASMINE strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to + the search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + In itself, YASMINE produces a significant advancement as a domain-dedicated metascraper, and such advancement + is pushed by the specific requirements that are posed by the two case studies, both of great relevance for Religious + Studies. In fact, they offer complex research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual + sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and read together, but which religious-historical research + can no longer ignore. + For the Sanctuaria case, the extreme fragmentation on a regional basis of the various projects (either in progress or + concluded) highlights a potential of connections not yet investigated. Thanks to YASMINE, the case-study intends + to create a network that identifies transversal research paths: cults, architectures, sources, to be identified on the + national territory but also in its Global extensions. + With regards to the Plorabunt project, YASMINE organises and provides access to an enormous amount of data + and sources on attacks against the prayerful in places of worship. Because of the wide scope of Plorabunt and of the + difficulties in finding on the web reliable information, the use of an intelligent metascraper is pivotal for treating and + analysing such a vast data source without limiting the scope of the research. To this respect, YASMINE offers a + breakthrough technology model, which is innovative and versatile enough to find other applications even beyond + the domain of Religious Studies. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + + + + 246 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + D6.1.1 Whitepaper on YASMINE + This deliverable describes YASMINE, a metascraper that is capable of performing: + 1)Automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data + 2)Layout analysis to automatically extract texts and images + 3)Semantic mapping of web pages, adding a semantic layer that acts as a + destination language. + 4)Interpretation of the semantic layer and mapping of its elements to data objects. + The deliverable also describes the output of the scraping activity, in form of FAIR- + compliant metadata. + D6.1.2 Whitepaper on Sanctuaria datasets + BM10 10 This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Sanctuaria test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Sanctuaria test-case. + D6.1.3 Whitepaper on Plorabunt datasets + This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Plorabunt test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Plorabunt + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + D6.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The training material for YASMINE is the output of this deliverable. It is built + upon the experience obtained through testing (A6.4) and through the previous + stages of development (A6.1-A6.3), with the help of IT experts, testers and + BM19 19 scholars. Training material is also produced, for integration with the + RESILIENCE research infrastructure. Additionally, documentation and training + materials are provided for accessing the databases dedicated to the two use cases, + Sanctuaria and Plorabunt. + + BM21 21 D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + + + + 247 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + The Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets are made available through RESILIENCE. + This aims at obtaining a double result: on the one hand, it provides researchers + with two powerful databases for pushing forward their research on two relevant + topics for Religious Studies; on the other hand, it displays the potentialities of + BM21 21 YASMINE and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other domains. + D6.4 Prepare YASMINE for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of YASMINE are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + BM1 1 M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + + + + 248 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM2 2 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM3 3 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 249 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + BM4 4 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + + + + 250 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM5 5 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + + + + 251 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM6 6 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + + 252 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM7 7 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM8 8 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 253 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM9 9 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + + + + 254 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM10 10 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + + + + 255 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM13 13 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 256 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM17 17 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + + + + 257 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM19 19 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + + + + 258 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM21 21 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + 259 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 50.134,56 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 100.269,12 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on YASMINE + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 167.994,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + + + + 260 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of YASMINE in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 172.354,58 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 261 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Second release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Application of YASMINE to the two case-studies + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 145.022,22 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + 262 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 274 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 28.028,36 28.028,36 + + 2 BM2 56.056,72 84.085,08 + + 3 BM3 110.462,52 194.547,60 + + 4 BM4 114.823,10 309.370,70 + + 5 BM5 114.823,10 424.193,80 + + 6 BM6 114.823,10 539.016,90 + + 7 BM7 114.823,10 653.840,00 + + 8 BM8 114.823,10 768.663,10 + + 9 BM9 114.823,10 883.486,20 + + 10 BM10 114.823,12 998.309,32 + + 13 BM13 114.823,10 1.113.132,42 + + 15 BM15 114.823,10 1.227.955,52 + + 17 BM17 114.823,10 1.342.778,62 + + 19 BM19 114.823,10 1.457.601,72 + + 21 BM21 85.283,78 1.542.885,50 + + + 36 WP title + REVER - REVErse Regesta + 37 WP number + 7 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 275 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + REVER is a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles (the regesta) to the + documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a regestum, by applying to + documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it takes advantage of the RESILIENCE + research infrastructure ecosystem, but it also represents a significant addition to it (and beyond). In fact, REVER is different from + existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the + contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. + + Scope and goal + Between the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, several scholars and erudites interested in the archival documents produced in the + Middle Ages tirelessly produced a large quantity of regesta (i.e. scholarly summaries of the contents of archival documents of diverse + natures). Paradoxically, the use of this scholarly literature, which bears extraordinary and unrepeatable scientific value, has fallen into + disuse without becoming obsolete: the fact that twenty-first-century scholars have become more and more accustomed to find online + significant segments of the information they look for has contributed to putting into jeopardy the immense treasure of regesta. Expert- + augmented machine learning will allow for the reconnection of the original sources to the regesta and will rescue two ‘old’ treasures (both + archival documents and the regesta themselves), thus making readily available to the scientific community the semantic density, complexity + and stratification of the regesta and pave the way to innovations. + Ecclesiastical sources are the typology of documents on which this intellectual exercise has been carried out most decisively and precisely. + For this reason, the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (an already existing collection of ecclesiastical documents from the origins of the + Latin Church to the twelfth century), represents an ideal sample dataset for applying expert-augmented machine learning to reconnect the + sources and their summaries (i.e. the regesta). + This activity requires a unique type of text summarisation algorithms that must be able to operate with different languages and with + domain-specific categories. The aim is therefore not to merely apply Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to a specific set of + texts (i.e. the regesta and the documents that they summarise): rather, the aim is to produce a new algorithm that is able to apply + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + + + + 276 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + pertaining to Religious Studies). Given that the regesta and the documents they summarise might not be already been digitised in textual + format, this activity will also take care of developing Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) tools, for translating handwritten texts into + digital text, and OCR tools for converting printed texts in a digital version. + The existing text summarisation software, based either on text extraction algorithms, or on text abstraction algorithms, or a combination + or both (such as LSA-Text-Summarisation, NAMAS, or TextRank), are meant to work in one direction only (from the full text to + the summary) and thus with a top-down approach; thanks to the coherence provided by the domain-related documents and to the + possibility of hyperlinking already existing summaries (i.e. the regesta) to the full documents, new algorithms can be developed and trained + to work in both directions, thanks to a positive feedback mechanism. In other words, it becomes capable of summarising documents in + regesta-type entries, but also of linking existing (or newly created) summaries to their sources. + The fact that regesta can be (and often are) written in a language that is different from the one of the documents they refer to adds a layer + of complexity: a form of reverse engineering based on algorithms capable of operating in different (or even encrypted) languages, like + ReFormat, is therefore required. + In addition to developing and optimising the algorithm(s), the WP develops a visualisation software for presenting the connections between + regesta and full documents, automatically hyperlinking the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their source. The software can + be operated offline or online and, for the scope of this WP, it is designed to display the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. + + Activities envisaged in the WP + A7.1 Analysis: Recognition of the use-case corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the documents they refer to) for algorithm + processing (i.e. pre-processing), production of scientific and technical requirements + + A7.2.1: Scientific preparation/IT: IT supervision and creation of guidelines for pre-processing corpora for REVER. + A7.2.2: Scientific preparation/Corpus building: supervision and corpus building on the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum for REVER. + A7.2.3: Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing: Application of guidelines for pre-processing the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + to be processed by REVER. + A7.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: coordination between IT and scientific research, and validation of the other activities in the + WP. + + A7.3: Development: development of text ranking and text summarisation algorithms for REVER, development of user interface, OCR + optimisation (where required). + + A7.4: Test: testing lifecycle on the desktop and server software (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security + testing, researchers community testing, etc.). + + A7.5: Operations: REVER desktop and server solutions go into production. Running REVER on the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum, release of the database created through REVER in RESILIENCE, and publication of REVER for the research + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, ETC + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + This WP develops an algorithm that serves as matcher from a summarised text to its original source and vice versa, + even when the summary and the full text are in different languages; the WP also develops an attached software for + the search and visualisation of results and takes care of digitising handwritten or printed documents. All prototypes + are able to work online and offline, with an accessible User Interface. Through expert-augmented machine learning, + the prototype will automatically hyperlink the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their transcribed full- + text source, matching the keywords and the most relevant elements in the summary to the extended version of the + source. This project allows: + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + + + + 277 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + allowing a wider and deeper access to fundamental sources; + 2.to make available the knowledge developed in the nineteenth century, thus preserving a repository of knowledge + that is foundational for the development of more refined research; + 3.and finally to develop in a new and innovative way the processes of machine learning/AI. + REVER strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Automatic text summarisation with machine learning is an already existing technology. However, generic text + summarisation is by definition non-specific, and does not add value to the summarised text: indeed, any summary is + specifically carried out to subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. On the other hand, the + proposed algorithm, with its capability of working both ways and of applying semantic and domain-specific + principles, does produce added value: for the full text, it produces a regestum, that is not just a summary, but a + domain-specific summary, with completely different criteria from generic text summarisation. On the other hand, + for the single regestum it provides a hyperlink to the full document to the domain-specific summary. + Starting from abstractive summarisation principles, this technology will be integrated with palaeographic and + diplomatic methodology to fuel – with a scientific and highly specialised knowledge – a machine learning process + capable of incrementing knowledge. + As a software prototype, REVER is also capable of being integrated in the wider RESILIENCE Research + Infrastructure, enlarging its field of application and its accessibility to the scholarly community at an european and + international level. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D7.1.1 Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + This whitepaper contains guidelines for corpus pre-processing is meant to provide + clear and usable instructions for researchers who wish to have their corpus + processed by REVER. The guidelines are developed according to the experience + BM5 5 developed with the case-study corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum), but + they are written to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not + corpus-specific, but rather software-specific, and can be updated throughout the + work of the WP. + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + BM13 13 This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + + + + 278 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + 1)Tools for handwritten text recognition of historical manuscripts and OCR on + digitised documents, according to the principles set by D7.1.1. + 2)an algorithm that is able to link the regesta to the documents they refer to, in an + automated way. The algorithm is tailored to the study-case, but is Open Source – + like all the other WP deliverables – and is passible for further improvement, + adaptation and optimisation. + BM13 13 3)An algorithm that performs the opposite work of the previous one. It is capable + of producing a regestum-like summary of a source text, by extracting information + in a domain-related way. It differs from text summarisation and non-specific text + extraction, since it produces a type of summary that is specifically tailored for the + study-case domain. It therefore ranks information automatically according to the + uses and needs of the scholarly community, and can be trained through machine + learning for optimising results. It is Open Source and is potentially adaptable to + other domains, beyond that of Religious Studies for which it was designed. + + D7.1.3 Whitepaper on REVER + This deliverable is a whitepaper describing REVER, i.e. the implementations of the + algorithms described in D7.1.2 with a user interface that allows browsing and + BM15 15 visualising the analysed corpus, linking existing regesta with their sources and + producing new regesta from existing sources. The deliverable is tested as a part of + activity A7.4, and the test results are used for further improvement and for + producing D7.2. + + BM17 17 - + + D7.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The training material indispensable for using REVER is the output of this + BM19 19 deliverable. It is built upon the experience obtained through testing (T.7) and + through the previous stages of development (T.1-T.6), with the help of IT experts, + testers and scholars. + + D7.3 Data publishing of new metadata on Regesta Pontificum Romanorum onto + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D7.1.3 and the documentation + written for D7.2, along with data prepared according to D.7.1.1, are combined in + the release of a browsable online version of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + through RESILIENCE. This produces a double output: on the one hand, it + provides researchers with a powerful prototype for accessing an important corpus + BM21 21 of documents (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum); on the other hand, it displays + the potentialities of REVER and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other + domains. + D7.4 Prepare REVER for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of REVER are packaged as + Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM1 1 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 279 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM2 2 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 280 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM3 3 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 281 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + BM4 4 M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + + + + 282 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM5 5 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 283 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + BM7 7 ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + + + + 284 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM8 8 For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 285 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + BM9 9 in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + + + + 286 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM10 10 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM13 13 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + + + + 287 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + + + + 288 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM17 17 ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + + + + 289 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM19 19 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + + + 290 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM21 21 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 28.028,36 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + 291 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 56.056,72 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 110.462,52 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 292 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of sources>regesta algorithm + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of regesta>sources algorithm + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.823,12 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of the SW in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 293 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.283,78 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 294 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 305 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 30.032,14 30.032,14 + + 2 BM2 60.064,27 90.096,41 + + 3 BM3 108.791,69 198.888,10 + + 4 BM4 114.282,80 313.170,90 + + 5 BM5 114.282,80 427.453,70 + + 6 BM6 114.282,80 541.736,50 + + 7 BM7 114.282,80 656.019,30 + + 8 BM8 114.282,80 770.302,10 + + 9 BM9 114.282,80 884.584,90 + + 10 BM10 114.282,77 998.867,67 + + 13 BM13 114.282,80 1.113.150,47 + + 15 BM15 114.282,80 1.227.433,27 + + 17 BM17 114.282,80 1.341.716,07 + + 19 BM19 114.282,80 1.455.998,87 + + 21 BM21 85.490,22 1.541.489,09 + + + 36 WP title + uBIQUity + 37 WP number + 8 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 306 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 9 Dipartimento di Architettura CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + In accordance with RESILIENCE’s objectives, uBIQUity intends to develop, and provide the scientific community of religious sciences + with, a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient + commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. These commentaries contain an immense patrimony of religious + scholarship and are unique sources for the study of the knowledge and readings of these two sacred texts through the centuries. Intertextual + references, whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the + sacred texts “ubiquitous”; in addition, references to existing, real-world “places of religious memory” add a further layer of significance to + uBIQUity. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the “collective + memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. Connecting exegetical works to real-world (and + sometimes shared) places allows to open a new avenue for looking at religious commentaries, further empowering the RESILIENCE + research-enhancing services. + + Scope and goal + Building upon the wealth of pre-existing resources, uBIQUity will produce a more performant software prototype for a machine-learning + search engine. It will be specifically projected to identify with a higher degree of accuracy both explicit and non-explicit quotations and + allusions to the Bible and to the Qur’ān through two huge corpora: Christian and Islamic commentaries. Expanding beyond the textual + level, it also includes the capability of linking places referred to in the texts to existing (or once-existing) places, enhancing the + understanding of the religious context. This new research prototype might develop further applications in the research of intertextual + references in different kinds of literary production. + As source material, uBIQUity includes all edited commentaries on the Bible composed from the Patristic age until the Late Byzantine + period, both in Greek and Latin; all edited classical commentaries on the Qur’ān composed in Arabic from the rise of Islam until the + 15th century. + Regarding the current state of the art, the following can be noted: + - Commentaries on the Bible: today, the only tool available to find Biblical references in patristic works is BiblIndex + (https://www.biblindex.org/en). Limits of BiblIndex: 1) it does not directly search through the texts but only relies on Biblical passages + identified as such by the editors of each work; 2) the corpus of authors is characterised by remarkable lacunae (e.g., Augustine of Hippo); + intentionally, Byzantine and middle-Latin Biblical commentaries are excluded. Differently, it is possible to search for Biblical references + through the corpora of Greek and Latin works digitised and uploaded on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Thesaurus + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + + + 307 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + been uploaded; 2) they are not specifically devised to explore the use of Biblical quotations/allusions both in a quantitative and + qualitative perspective. + - Commentaries on the Qur’ān: the only tools that allow to find Qur’ānic quotations in the Islamic classical commentaries (tafsīr) are: al- + Mawsūa al- Shāmila (https://shamela.ws/category/3 and https://old.shamela.ws/index.php/category/127); Great Tafsirs + (https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_Library.aspx?Menu=1&LanguageID=1); Altafsir + (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID= + 1); Ğāmi al-Tafāsīr 3 (https://abrenoor.ir/ar/app/abrenoor_jamitafasir3). However, they do not contain all the tafsīr literature + already edited and do not have important functions such as the possibility of cross-references among commentaries, n-grams, statistics, + morphological and semantic analysis of words. + + uBIQUity will combine and implement (with approx. 20% of increased efficacy) the already existing resources by means of licence + agreements and collaboration with potential partners (e.g., TLG, TLL, Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum) and the adoption of + detecting plagiarism softwares (e.g., iThenticate) as well as corpus query tools (e.g., AntConc, Wordsmith). In addition, it opens a new + road for context understanding by linking textual and spatial elements with religious significance. Technicians will integrate the pre- + existing models with the most advanced methods of semantic word-embedding (e.g., word3vec) according to uBIQUity’s outcomes. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A8.1: Analysis and Prototyping: Preliminary scientific and technical work: analysis and mapping of the corpora, analysis of technical + requirements and scientific needs. + + A8.2.1: Scientific Preparation/IT: verification of the technical and scientific requirements, software experimenting, acquisition of software + licences. + A8.2.2: Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran: corpus acquisition and interaction with TLG, TLL; corpus acquisition and + interaction with Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum partners. + A8.2.3: Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation: linking of places and spaces described in Qu’ranic and Biblical texts and + commentaries to existing (or once-existing) places. + + A8.3: Development: Development of a software specifically aimed at recognizing and detecting Biblical and Qur’ānic quotations and + allusions in the corpora. + + A8.4: Test: deployment and testing of two websites (Biblical and Qur’ānic commentaries) hosted by a shared platform, which will + interoperate with the same software projected to work with three different alphabets and languages (Greek, Latin, and Arabic). + + A8.5: Operations: uBIQUity goes in production. Running uBIQUity on the two corpora, release of the service in RESILIENCE- + RI.EU platform, and publication of uBIQUity for marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The WP makes available a full set of digitised commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān written in the established + chronological frame. Texts will undergo a formal revision by specialists of Greek, Latin and Arabic. Where + necessary, texts will be lemmatized and morphologically tagged. The commentaries will be indexed according to the + author’s name / work titles / century. This work will contribute to building two databases that will be made + accessible to the scientific community. Users will be able to query the databases through different access keys. Each + commentary will be accompanied by an updated bibliography. Thanks to the results of this WP, researchers will be + able to quickly and accurately identify quotations/allusions in ancient commentaries on the sacred texts of + Christianity and Islam. Furthemore, more functions will be made available in uBIQUity, such as n-grams, statistics, + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + + + + 308 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + (also visual) subsets quotations/allusions found in commentaries according to their possible variant readings. + uBIQUity strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + search&find and collaboration tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation: + There are no databases specifically dedicated to ancient commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān. Some + commentaries have never been digitised and this first step will make an outstanding literary and exegetical heritage + available for researchers’ needs. The set of annexed instruments requires a Religious Studies expertise to be properly + laid out, and the Religious Studies scholarly community remains its primary target: the set of instruments, however, + will be auxiliary to other involved research fields, such as philology, textual criticism, history, and others. + With regards to the primary target domain, namely Religious Studies, the use of a more adequate and advanced + toolkit for concordances and text analysis is capable of allowing the achievement of significantly better results + compared to now. Semantic computational analysis will produce new research acquisitions. Reconstructing with the + highest degree of accuracy the way a text or an author dialogues with other texts or authors (through direct or + indirect, implicit, quotations, allusions, imitations or re-writings) means to clearly visualise and, hence, to be able to + explore more efficiently the continuous and unavoidable dialectic between past and present, tradition and + innovation, which lies at the very basis of hermeneutics. The proposed digital prototype aims at creating a shared + research instrument that will fill the gap resulting from the lack of a standard scientific approach. Besides, identifying + the range of quotations/allusions present in a certain author’s work will help visually reconstruct their Biblical or + Qur’ānic library, i.e., the number and kind of their readings. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D8.1.1 Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + This whitepaper describes the functions of the algorithms producing concordances + list, indicating possible allusions, and carrying out citation network analysis on the + BM6 6 corpora under scrutiny. The whitepaper also details how to prepare a corpus for + processing, even in different languages and alphabets, drawing from experience + obtained by working with the Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries. + + BM7 7 - + + D8.1.2 Whitepaper on uBIQUity + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of uBIQUity, intended as a + software that runs the algorithms and the functions described in D8.1.1 on two + BM8 8 twin websites (for Bible and Qur’an) hosted by a shared platform. This deliverable + details the type of operations that can be performed on the corpora, and collects + the results of preliminary testing, serving as a basis for the training material and the + documentation to be provided for uBIQUity. + + BM9 9 - + + + + + 309 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D8.1.3 Whitepaper on the results using UBIQUITY on Bible and Qur'anic + commentaries + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to uBIQUity, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It not only describes uBIQUity’s performances in theory (as with + D8.1.2), but it also presents the results of its operation “on the field”, thus acting + not only as a prototype or a scientific demonstrator, but as a potential instrument + for producing new knowledge and opening new roads for research. + + BM17 17 - + + D8.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM19 19 uBIQUity is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + package includes use-case samples (drawn from D8.1.3), as well as templates. + + D8.3 Publishing of new Bible and Qur'anic commentaries metadata on + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D8.1.2 and the documentation + written for D8.2, along with data prepared according to D.8.1.1 guidelines, are + combined in the release of two websites (for Bible and Qu’ran, each with their + relative commentaries), hosted by a shared platform through RESILIENCE and + powered by uBIQUity. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly community + BM21 21 a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and exploring the + connections between religious texts and their commentaries; on the other hand, + this displays the potentialities of uBIQUity, setting a new standard for tools + dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also for other domains. + D8.4 Prepare uBIQUity for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of uBIQUity are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + + + + 310 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + BM2 2 ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + + + + 311 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM3 3 ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + + + + 312 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM4 4 For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + + + + 313 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM5 5 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + + + + 314 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM6 6 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 315 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM7 7 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 316 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM8 8 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM9 9 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 317 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM10 10 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 318 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + + + + 319 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + + + + 320 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM17 17 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + + + + 321 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM19 19 ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + + + + 322 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + BM21 21 ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 323 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 30.032,14 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 60.064,27 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of the Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 108.791,69 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 324 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered; Approval of second release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.282,77 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 325 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.490,22 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + + + + 326 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 336 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 27.301,64 27.301,64 + + 2 BM2 54.603,28 81.904,92 + + 3 BM3 80.419,44 162.324,36 + + 4 BM4 83.395,04 245.719,40 + + 5 BM5 83.395,04 329.114,44 + + 6 BM6 83.395,04 412.509,48 + + 7 BM7 83.395,04 495.904,52 + + 8 BM8 83.395,04 579.299,56 + + 9 BM9 83.395,04 662.694,60 + + 10 BM10 83.395,07 746.089,67 + + 13 BM13 83.395,04 829.484,71 + + 15 BM15 83.395,04 912.879,75 + + 17 BM17 83.395,04 996.274,79 + + 19 BM19 83.395,04 1.079.669,83 + + 21 BM21 66.166,42 1.145.836,25 + + + 36 WP title + TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies + 37 WP number + 9 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 337 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + + 40 WP Leader + Stefano De Martino, Full Professor, OU10 UNITO-DSS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + The work package has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and + materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally + applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains two such instruments: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: tablets from the Near East. + - ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. + + Scope and goal + The tool prototypes developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope + and application. More in particular: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: cuneiform tablets from the Near East. + This prototype is dedicated to the collection and representation of the about two millions of cuneiform tablets and bullae documenting + history and religion(s) of the Near East. They are written in cuneiform writing but in different languages, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, + Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite, Hattic, Luwian, and Ugaritic. A significant part of them features religion-specific content, but their + accessibility remains an issue for contemporary scholars. In fact, the tablets are dispersed in several museums in the world, and can often + be accessed only through hand copies and photographs. Hand copies, however, are a subjective work and can contain mistakes. + Photographs, on the other hand, can represent only with great difficulty the curved surface of the tablet. Thus, neither of these traditional + methods can be considered satisfyingly accurate. Even physical access to the document is often not a viable option, because of their fragility + and/or because of unstable political situations in the places where they are stored and preserved. EnLil aims at making cuneiform tablets + accessible in a 3D virtual representation. We aim at testing all the available instrumentation on the collection of tablets in Torino (Musei + Reali) in order ro check the most reliable and low cost equipment. Some of the 3D photo instruments are very expensive and Middle + Eastern Museums cannot support these costs. After the survey of the available instrumentation we will be able to share with the producers + the needs required by the best high resolution 3DScan for the virtual representation of any possible object with a curved surface. A test + will be made on a collection of tablets (either in Turkey or in Iraq) with a virtual reconstruction of the building where the tablesìts had + been kept (MiRAr project). In addition, we will train members of the staff of some Turkish and/or Iraqi museums. Among the other + projects of representation of the cuneiform tablets, the most advanced is the project led by the Universities of Wuerzburg, Mainz and + Dortmund whose focus is analysing the characters of cuneiform writing and putting together the pieces of fragmented documents, while we + propose to reconstruct a virtual ancient library with its content. A collaboration with the aforementioned project is on our agenda. + - ACIS – Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. This prototype aims to merge the domains of archival digitization and informative + modelling by using artificial intelligence (AI) applications to serve as a shared information collection layer for EnLil and MiRAr. + The general objective of ACIS is therefore the systematisation and optimization of documentary knowledge, making archival, + bibliographic and iconographic sources interoperable and accessible through the extraction of innovative information from multimedia + digital archives based on deep learning techniques. In principle, ACIS also makes possible a layered 3d visualisation of the artefacts + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + + + 338 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + pertaining to each object. Modification and restoration vicissitudes, collection and exhibition history, visual and literary sources are + reconstructed and analysed comprehensively, as evidence of the "life" of artworks in relation to more general instances of change, including + mentality, taste, culture, materials, meaning and ideology, and social structure. The project also integrates the "future life" of works of art, + integrating knowledge of techniques, restoration practices and preventive maintenance protocols. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A9.1: Analysis and prototyping: recognition and experimenting of 3d acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS); + analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts); layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre- + processing of source archives (where needed); layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and + made available to ACIS and then to EnLil (for tablets and sites). + + A9.2: Scientific Preparation: acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; mapping of the history of conservation for works + of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of preservation, collector and museum history (for + ACIS); validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in the following activity (A9.3). + + A9.3: Development: development of software specified in A9.1, with a prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, + sites, artefacts); development of a repository as required by A9.1; enhancement and optimisation of 3d visualisation software for each of + the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + + A9.4: Test: the acquisition system is tested; the automatic metadatation prototype is tested; the optimised visualisation prototypes for + EnLil, ACIS are tested; testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated + for improvement of the prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + + A9.5: Operation: EnLil and ACIS are implemented and run on specific use-cases; the resulting databases are published on + RESILIENCE.EU; EnLil and ACIS are prepared for publication to RIs software marketplace such as EOSC/SSHOC, + CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The aim of TAURUS is to push forward our understanding of ancient religions by allowing researchers to access + documents in a new way. + In the case of written documents, with EnLil, it provides a technology for 3D acquisition and visualisation, which is + fundamental for objects that are fragile and tri-dimensional like cuneiform tablets and bullae; in addition, it enlarges + the corpus available to researchers, laying the foundation for further discovery, and locates them in the place of + discovery. + In the case of heritage artefacts, ACIS draws information from available archives and databases on the status and the + conservational history of each artefact. As such, it serves as a data source (or as a data enricher) for EnLil (when the + artefacts are tablets, and contextualised in space); additionally, it is also usable as a self-standing service for + visualisation of the single artefact (or artefact collection). + + TAURUS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + + Motivation + TAURUS optimises effort to overcome shortages of current tools available for Religious Studies and Archaeology + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + + + 339 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + 1)With EnLil, it overcomes the difficulty of the availability of the real cuneiform tablets and bullae by means of a + 3D-capable digital library, maximising exploitability of all the available data (content of the documents, their + materiality, state of preservation, lay out, palaeography of the writing, connections among texts coming from + different ages and countries, places of discovery) + 2)With ACIS, it makes available information on the transformations that artefacts have undergone in substance and + location. Through the history of restoration, it allows researchers and users to access the stories of objects but also + of the people who have observed, loved, stole, bought, stored, restored and studied them. Another effect of ACIS is + connected to issues of restoration and preventive conservation, a complex case where it is necessary to consider the + needs of the historic buildings and their relationship with the needs of the collections. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D9.1.1 Whitepaper on EnLil + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of EnLil , intended as a + software that performs 3D virtual representation and builds a virtual ancient + BM6 6 library. Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes + EnLil in its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in + subsequent phases. + + BM7 7 - + + D9.1.2 Whitepaper on ACIS + This whitepaper focuses on reconstructing the mechanisms of ACIS and + illustrating the links between existing sources and databases. There are two steps: + BM8 8 1) the definition of a protocol for the narration of the conservative history of the + artistic heritage and 2) the connection between diagnostic techniques and + preventive maintenance + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D9.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM15 15 TAURUS is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of two + training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + + D9.3.1 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - EnLil + BM17 17 The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + + + + 340 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by EnLil itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of EnLil. + D9.3.2 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - ACIS + The database created by using ACIS on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by ACIS itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototyp for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of ACIS. + + BM19 19 - + + D9.4 Prepare the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS) for publication to + RESILIENCE marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of the TAURUS toolkit + elements are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the software + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM1 1 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 341 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM2 2 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM3 3 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 342 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM4 4 ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + + + 343 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM5 5 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 344 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + + + + 345 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM8 8 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + + + 346 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM9 9 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM10 10 ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + + + + 347 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + BM13 13 ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + + + + 348 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM15 15 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM17 17 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 349 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM19 19 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + + + + 350 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM21 21 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 27.301,64 + + IO Desciption + + + + 351 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.603,28 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on EnLil + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 80.419,44 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on ACIS + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 352 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 83.395,07 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in PRODUCTION environment; second release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + + + 353 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 66.166,42 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + + + + 354 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 361 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 22.386,98 22.386,98 + + 2 BM2 44.773,97 67.160,95 + + 3 BM3 95.101,00 162.261,95 + + 4 BM4 101.788,50 264.050,45 + + 5 BM5 101.788,50 365.838,95 + + 6 BM6 101.788,50 467.627,45 + + 7 BM7 101.788,50 569.415,95 + + 8 BM8 101.788,50 671.204,45 + + 9 BM9 101.788,50 772.992,95 + + 10 BM10 101.788,55 874.781,50 + + 13 BM13 101.788,50 976.570,00 + + 15 BM15 101.788,50 1.078.358,50 + + 17 BM17 101.788,50 1.180.147,00 + + 19 BM19 101.788,50 1.281.935,50 + + 21 BM21 70.812,00 1.352.747,50 + + +36 WP title + ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond +37 WP number + 10 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 362 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + +40 WP Leader + Andrea D'Andrea, Senior Research Fellow, OU4 UNIOR-DAAM +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + This WP aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive dedicated to + complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it uses texts from + the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. About this case-study, the WP firstly produces an analysis of the most correct procedures + for the digitization and online publication of ancient texts and manuscripts; secondly, it sets out to develop a software able to support + scholars in the research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. The procedures and the software blueprint are intended to be + applicable to a diverse spectrum of texts, even beyond the case-study under scrutiny. + + Scope and goal + Many ancient textual documents from the Nile Valley and the other neighbour regions of north-eastern Africa, and the Near East deal + with religious content. They are written in hieroglyph, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Latin, and Coptic alphabet, Meroitic hieroglyph and + cursive, old Nubian script, epigraphic South Arabian, Arabic and Ge'ez script. The used languages are Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old + Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, Arabic and Ge‘ez. The support materials of the texts are stone, clay, + papyrus, parchment, pottery, wood. Consequently, the adopted tools range from the stylus to the cisel. + The chronology of these texts ranges from the end of the 4th millennium BC, with the earliest hieroglyph inscriptions, to the 15th century + AD, with the latest Old Nubian documents (later productions in Arabic and Coptic, mainly consist of manuscripts, lay beyond the scope + of this WP and can be covered in other RESILIENCE activities). The contents of these texts are very different and varied: descriptions + of religious ceremonies, funerary texts, prayers, incantations, lists of offerings and temple personnel, etc. + A data set of a large and rich selection of these texts (in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of + South Arabian, Ge‘ez, Arabic) is still lacking and only some partial digital archives are currently available. + As far as texts on stone and other hard supports are concerned, only very partial and unsystematic programs of scanning of inscriptions + and associated structures have been undertaken in the Nile Valley area. Still very recently (2016) teams working on the implementation + of partial corpora were relying on traditional, even if digital, photographic technique (see e.g., the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by the + Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents). Other projects, although adopting more technologically advanced procedures, including the + use of laser scanning technology, were focussing on a single site and a single type of writing support, like in the case of the von Humboldt + Universität project at in the Meroitic monumental complex at Musawwarat es-Sufra or of the Münich Museum project at the Meroitic + site of Naqa. “The Picturing Religion: The Philae Temple Graffiti Project” by the Simon Fraser University is ongoing at Philae, in + Egypt and is aimed at recording all the religious graffiti characterizing the temple. Similar activities of scanning rocky facades with rock + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + + + + 363 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + The automatic textual analysis was also only very rarely attempted in the study of the inscribed documents form the Nile valley. A very + famous and precocious, but very soon abandoned example was represented by Meroitic inscriptions and took place through the digitization + of the transliterated texts. In any case, as in the case of manuscripts, no attempts were made to integrate in a single procedure the scan of + the document, the analysis of its text and the analysis of the support. + In the case of funerary contexts, although some projects were undertaken for digitising tombs in the Nile valley, like in the case of the + Saite Saqqara Tombs Project of the University of Tübingen, this was not related to the analysis of the texts associated to the tombs and + of the writing support. + The same tardiness can be remarked in adopting digital technologies not only for recording but also for analysing texts on papyrus and the + writing support itself. Moreover, also in this case only specific projects on single collections can be remarked, like in the case of the ongoing + TPOP project in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. + Even in the case of manuscripts (and other texts on soft supports, such as papyrus, parchment etc.) from the Nile Valley, only specific + and sometimes partial projects were conducted so far (see a list at Digitized Manuscript Collections - A Research Guide to Middle + Eastern Studies - Guides at Penn Libraries (upenn.edu)). So far no attempts were made to relate the scanning of the manuscripts to the + automatic identification and analysis of the text, as well as to the analysis of the writing support. Moreover, the lack of suitable portable + equipment should be lamented, as this greatly limits the possibility of recording large collections of manuscripts kept in far and remote + locations. + Even when attempts were made to conduct an automatised linguistic analysis of the texts, like, e.g. the one conducted on Sahidic Coptic + manuscripts by the University of Colorado, the textual analysis was unrelated to the implementation of a digital reproduction of the + manuscript and to the analysis of the writing support. + + ReTINA aims to create an environment that in the first place lays out and optimises common guidelines for the digitisation and digital + archiving of such a diverse array of sources, accounting for the challenges posed by the very different languages and writing support types. + Secondly, building on these guidelines, it aims to produce a blueprint and a prototype of a software tool for supporting scholars in the + research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. In the third place, it uses the guidelines, the software prototype and domain- + specific expertise to lay out specifications for hardware that can be used to acquire texts in different support even in difficult environments + (because of climatic, political, or economical reasons). + The interconnection between the merely textual element and the religious component, given by the very nature of the texts under scrutiny, + allows ReTINA to go beyond the linguistic aspect, assisting researchers with the necessary information on context, religious significance + and religious history that allow to improve the interpretation of the analysed documents. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A10.1: Analysis. This activity is focused on selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from + different times, regions, languages and supports. + + A10.2: Scientific preparation. Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing of the datasets and description of the original contexts of + relevance with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts. + + A10.3: Development. This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the + complexity of the case study. The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process. Finally, it develops + a software prototype for annotation and visualisation of the texts. + + A10.4: Test. This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3 + + A10.5: Operations. This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for + release in the RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and + scientific point of view. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + + + + 364 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + ReTINA empowers RESILIENCE RI by implementing a digital archive containing some datasets of religious + content from sites in the ancient world along the Nile Valley and its surroundings, including various languages and + cultures. Starting with a comprehensive review of the state of the art in the field of study (white paper) and using + digital datasets available to the research unit, a data model will be designed. The schema will be consistent with the + main international metadata standards, taxonomies and thesauri and will be published as Open Data and/or Linked + Open Data to encourage the spread of the principles of FAIR data and, more generally, of Open Science in this area + of study. Some mapping procedures, which will allow to carry out a data-integration among data encoded according + to different schemas, will be designed, and implemented to facilitate the integration of various datasets and + heterogenous archives. + The goal is achieved through completion of several steps, examining digital datasets already directly available to + UNIOR or through agreements in place with Italian Museums and Archives to highlight strengths and weaknesses + in the sharing and reuse of data. At the same time, other paper archives (cards, photos, texts, etc.) will be digitised + according to a data scheme developed by UNIOR. + The digital archives will be compared and integrated thanks to the semantic and syntactic interoperability guaranteed + by the adoption of international metadata. The texts, appropriately transliterated, will be able to be annotated by the + users who will also be able to visualise the support of the text in 3D and have precise information on the material + used to inscribe the subject with religious content. Different digitisations approaches and 3D technologies will be + tried to identify ways to digitally acquire these materials; the results will give important results on the best practices + to create digital resources compliant with the requisite of RESILIENCE. + + ReTINA strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + ReTINA addresses a gap in the digital description and fruition of Religious Texts in ancient and rare script and from + complex contexts by optimising a shared data model and by producing software prototype for fruition. The domain- + specific character of Religious Studies, where the linguistic significance of the texts must be linked to specific + historical, theological and cultural factors, allows to account for descriptors that go beyond the merely linguistic + level, and can lay the basis for further digitisation works. The fragmented context of the Nile Valley case-study + represents a microcosmos that can be extended to other equally (or more) fragmented contexts: ReTINA therefore + represents a prototype that, thanks to digitisation and complex visualisation, can increase knowledge and + understanding even beyond the Nile Valley. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + BM6 6 This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + + + + 365 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + BM6 6 archives on ancient religious content, and serves as a basis for the further + development of ReTINA. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 . + + D10.2: Preliminary Data-Model + This deliverable contains the schema for encoding texts and manuscripts according + BM9 9 to Open Science principles, accounting for the different supports and for the + specificities due to the religious nature of the texts. + + D10.3: Data-acquisition procedures + This deliverable validates the preliminary data-model, and completes it by + BM10 10 describing procedures to digitise texts and manuscripts and to enrich the + digitisation with 3D data, chemical and Mineralogical data etc. + + BM13 13 - + + D10.4: Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface + This deliverable consists of a prototype of ReTINA, a software prototype for + BM15 15 annotating texts and manuscripts according to the specifications of D10.3,for + archiving, and for visualising the annotated texts and the relative + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D10.5 Prepare ReTINA for publication to RESILIENCE RI marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of ReTINA are packaged + BM21 21 as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. In addition the validated guidelines + are published for re-use by the scholarly community + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 366 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM2 2 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 367 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + BM3 3 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM4 4 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 368 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM5 5 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + + + + 369 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM6 6 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM7 7 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 370 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM8 8 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 371 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM9 9 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + + 372 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM10 10 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + + + + 373 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + BM15 15 ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + + + + 374 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM17 17 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM19 19 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 375 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM21 21 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 376 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 22.386,98 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 44.773,97 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on digital archives on ancient religious content + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 95.101,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts for ReTINA + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 377 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 101.788,55 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 378 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Document delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in PRODUCTION environment; second release of Prototype + for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Application of ReTINA data model and annotator to the case-study corpora + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 70.812,00 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + + + + 379 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + + + + + 387 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 6.163,05 6.163,05 + + 2 BM2 54.314,50 60.477,55 + + 3 BM3 49.812,90 110.290,45 + + 4 BM4 49.812,90 160.103,35 + + 5 BM5 49.812,90 209.916,25 + + 6 BM6 49.812,90 259.729,15 + + 7 BM7 49.812,90 309.542,05 + + 8 BM8 49.812,90 359.354,95 + + 9 BM9 49.812,90 409.167,85 + + 10 BM10 49.812,85 458.980,70 + + 13 BM13 49.812,90 508.793,60 + + 15 BM15 49.812,90 558.606,50 + + 17 BM17 49.812,90 608.419,40 + + 19 BM19 26.385,58 634.804,98 + + 21 BM21 1.479,13 636.284,11 + + + 36 WP title + Trans-National Access + 37 WP number + 11 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 388 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP11 is dedicated to the management of Trans-National Access activities, which includes: administrative effort to ensure the proper + development of the process from the call to the payment of the grants; provision of all necessary equipment for TNA grant-holders to + develop their research; coordination with the RESILIENCE TNA programme. + + Scope + ITSERR Transnational Access Programme offers physical and virtual access to the most significant tools and sources in the field of + religious studies. + This offer is unique, because it combines data of institutions participating in ITSERR, thus offering knowledge that is of high importance + not only for scholars, but also for decision makers from society and policy. The transnational access service is an answer to the need of + scholars to have direct and effective access to the objects of their research, which are preserved in different institutions. Often these collections + neither have been digitised nor can be uploaded without restricted access. + Through its Transnational Access Programme ITSERR offers support and expertise for research stays at Italian centres and libraries + that hold relevant collections for the study of religions. These institutions grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, + documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies. + The aim of ITSERR is to facilitate and foster a sophisticated and advanced TNA system to sources, resources, expertise and services for + researchers in Religious Studies and related disciplines which are available within ITSERR, ensure an efficient access workflow and a + single entry point. To provide excellence-driven access to its physical resources, ITSERR offers assistance to researchers seeking to conduct + a research visit at one of the partner facilities offering this type of access. The goal of the research visits is to grant scholars direct and + effective access to the objects of their research. This includes access to research material and instructions to effectively make use of it as well + as a work place at the facility. Furthermore, ITSERR aims at matching all successful TNA applicants with experts at the facilities who + can guide them or offer advice on the subject of study. + Moreover, to cover all disciplines involved in the study of religions in all their facets and provide the widest range of relevant materials and + expertise, ITSERR seeks to include further partners into its TNA program. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + - 120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated number of 50 users + - 108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + + Activities + A11.1 TNA Services Brainstorming: based on the deliverables existing within RESILIENCE, the Consortium brainstorms on the + best ways to provide TNA services to the ITSERR Italian Researchers ecosystem. This activity leads to the creation of the TNA + Management Plan. + + A11.2 Planning of TNA activities: A list of the resources that could be made available to the TNA users is finalised and a calendar of + the Call for Proposal publication is established. + + + + 389 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A11.3 Execution of TNA activities: The Call for proposals are published following the plan established. A Peer Review Committee is + set-up to read, qualify and select the best proposals submitted by the TNA candidates. When the candidates are selected, the TNA + administration organises all the visits for the different resources. + + A11.4 TNA activities follow-up: This activity, started with the Call for Proposal, aims at continuously collecting feedback from all + ITSERR TNA stakeholders and synchronising the TNA strategy and planning with RESILIENCE. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and manages the TNA Services to be provided within WP3 to WP10 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The access policy is formalised, published within an ITSERR TNA Management Plan and a first set of TNA calls + for proposal are implemented. + Researchers are put in the condition of knowing what RESILIENCE services are offered, what are the benefits of + accessing them, where they are accessible and following which procedure, etc. For those services requiring an + excellence-driven access mode RESILIENCE puts in place a fully operational TNA call-cycle. Such a call system, + accessible to physical and digital services already in place and running at RESILIENCE facilities, is made operational + during this project. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + -120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated + number of 50 users + -108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + -All performed over 4 calls for proposals published each semester + With respect to physical access, the RI assumes as the unit of access: + -a week for individuals and/or teams willing to access facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place + and running, since a week is an appropriate amount of time to use the material instruments of research (archives, + libraries, collections). A week is a unit of access that grants the needed acquaintance with the documents and sources + and their effective use within the research activity. In the TNA programme organised by the RESILIENCE Starting + Community, ReIReS, users usually spent two weeks at the TNA provider to develop their project. + -A month for individuals and/or teams willing to access the working groups and research teams of ITSERR in its + technical development, allowing their participation in the making of the services. + + This TNA programme strengthens particularly the RESILIENCE supply of research-enhancing services in its + physical access mode, and most importantly works as a case-study to further the RESILIENCE development of + TNA activities (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + BM1 1 quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + BM2 2 - + + + + + 390 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM5 5 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM8 8 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM13 13 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM15 15 - + + + + 391 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + BM21 21 ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM1 1 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + BM2 2 The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + + + + 392 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM2 2 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM3 3 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + BM4 4 level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + + + + 393 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM5 5 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + BM6 6 approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + + + + 394 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM7 7 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM8 8 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + BM9 9 ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + + + + 395 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM10 10 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + BM13 13 ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + + + + 396 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM15 15 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM17 17 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + + + + 397 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM19 19 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM21 21 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + + + + 398 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 6.163,05 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.314,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + First TNA Call published + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Second TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 399 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Third TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 49.812,85 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Fourth TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + + + + 400 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 26.385,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 1.479,13 + + IO Desciption + Last version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access + operations and research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + + + + + 401 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + TNA activities follow-up + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 406 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 407 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 225.784,62 225.784,62 + + 2 BM2 255.054,54 480.839,16 + + 3 BM3 293.681,45 774.520,61 + + 4 BM4 293.681,45 1.068.202,06 + + 5 BM5 255.054,54 1.323.256,60 + + 6 BM6 216.427,63 1.539.684,23 + + 7 BM7 216.427,63 1.756.111,86 + + 8 BM8 216.427,63 1.972.539,49 + + 9 BM9 216.427,63 2.188.967,12 + + 10 BM10 216.427,60 2.405.394,72 + + 13 BM13 216.427,63 2.621.822,35 + + 15 BM15 216.427,63 2.838.249,98 + + 17 BM17 271.638,34 3.109.888,32 + + 19 BM19 271.638,34 3.381.526,66 + + 21 BM21 204.662,23 3.586.188,89 + + + 36 WP title + Project and Impact Management + 37 WP number + 1 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 1 WP Duration 42 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 408 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Carlo Meghini, Director of Research, OU 1 CNR-ISTI + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + The Project Management and Impact WP is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the + project to achieve its objectives and to evaluate its impact in the short and long term. It is therefore an activity that oversees all WPs. + The activities managed by WP1 produce excellent individual results for each WP but collectively integrated within the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem and by spreading these results through various market places (e.g., SSHOC, CLARIN, DARIAH, etc.), they will + generate a chain reaction of new research data, capacities, interconnections, exploitation, etc. becoming far more than the sum of individual + WP results. + To support the work conducted by scientific and technical teams, therefore, the WP aims at: + Implementing the ITSERR governance structure, and ensuring partners’ coordinated and cooperative work; + Guaranteeing the guidance, cooperation, synergy and synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE; + Monitoring the progress of the whole project and of the single WPs and managing contingencies; + Identifying risks and implementing effective control measures; + Monitoring the quality of the deliverables produced and the respect of progress indicators; + Ensuring the respect of security measures for the deliverables produced and the services provided; + Managing the human resources involved in the project; + Implementing a communication strategy for the project and coordinating its activities within RESILIENCE; + Identifying and organising training activities for the human resources involved in the project; + Detailing the RESILIENCE socio-economic ex ante impact study for the Italian context, in terms of effective impact cases, to be + evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms. + Endorse and adapt the RESILIENCE impact measurement methodology to ITSERR to identify, evaluate and quantify the project’s + impact in the long term in its different areas of action (science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources); + Ensure ITSERR sustainability beyond the 30 months of duration of the project. + + Summary of activities + + + + 409 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Summary of activities + A1.1 Governance set-up: During this activity, the ITSERR management team will perform the following activities: + - Organisation of the Kick-off event + - Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: + - Detailed Organisation Plan (See D1.1) + - Quality Assurance Plan (See D1.2) + - Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3) + - Security Management Plan(See D1.5) + - Set-up of the entire management and governance structures of ITSERR: Board of Directors (BoD); Steering Committee; International + Advisory Board (IAB) and Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF) + - Organisation of WP Staff Trainings + - Organised the synchronisation of knowledge, resources, software and services with RESILIENCE + - Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners + - Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + - Organise the closure event and submit the final report to the Ministry + - Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + + A1.2 Monitoring: During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager will lead the management of the following activities: + - Daily team stand-up + - Weekly monitoring + - Cross-project follow-up + - Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting + - HR Monitoring + - Impact Monitoring + - Scientific coordination + - Project Management activities performed by the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders + - Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager + - Security Mgt/Monitoring activities under the responsibilities of the Security Officer + + A1.3 to A1.6 Finance & Admin Management for the different partner institutions: cover the project financial duties, administrative + aspects, Human Resources management and support of the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management. + This WP targets excellence in all domains but specifically in the recruitment as it is a key factor of success for the project. Our excellence + strategy is based on the following activity aspects: + - Candidates’ sourcing strategy for an “Excellent satisfactory capacity”: targeting partners departments providing excellence in their + research fields and pre-selection of Italian companies delivering already thousands of ICT staff in Italy; + - High competence: strict and professional qualification process mostly relying on the specialised technical support from our specialised + researchers. All profiles and skills required are described in a skills matrix shared among all recruiters. + - Professional, specialised and innovative qualification material created by our HR team with our Cluster of Competences (CC) composed + by the best researchers and technologists in the domain + - Technical interviews led by Specialised staff from the CC + - The Resource Pool (RP) has an adequate size (2 times the size of the ITSERR yearly staffing plans). + - The content of the RP (incl. CVs) is always accurate and up-to-date. + - Continuous recruitment: implemented by two approaches: 1)Continuous selection of candidates to feed a Resource Pool (RP) exceeding + ITSERR Staffing Plans (reviewed monthly, quarterly & yearly) 2) including a special recruitment strategy for unplanned situations + + A1.7 Impact Management: This activity acts as a transversal WP activity which cooperates with all other WPs to develop an impact + measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact in the long term in its different areas of action such as + science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources. This activity will produce the D1.4 Impact Analysis Report + (IAR). + + A1.8 Communication Management: based on the Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3), the communication team will create + and implement the ITSERR CDP, develop new or updated communication means like flyers, banners etc. + + + + + 410 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A1.9 Training Management: Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and + RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) + necessary to create a ITSERR training framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and + methods to support researchers in using RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + The WPs 2 to 12 are governed by WP1 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + All ITSERR activities are meant to produce key building blocks to the 50+ research services of the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem. + It is correct to state that each WP produces prototype/products and new research (meta)data within a specific area. + But to create a chain reaction of added-value, ITSERR ensures the interoperability and reusability of all data, + software and services produced within the project. + From a scientific point of view, ITSERR includes key scientists who are aware of each other’s activities, specificities + and methodologies, and have a long-standing history of cooperation, as witnessed, for instance, by the recently + launched national PhD course in religious studies. From a technical point of view, the following points apply: + - All WP Leaders meet weekly within the Steering Committee to monitor that activities are progressing as planned + and that resources usage is optimal. + - All WP software requirements are architected and designed by the same architecture team to ensure that a software + re-used existing/shared components, that a software output could be reused as an input to another system, that + systems can be interconnected among themselves but also with other stakeholders (e.g. publishers, GLAM, etc.) + - All Data requirements are modeled by the same Data Management Team to ensure ontological, semantic and + syntactic interoperability not only within RESILIENCE RI ecosystem but more generally with the majority of DH + ecosystems. + - Experience and knowledge generated within each individual WP is centralized and processed to create new + learning material such as best practices for specific research area, , toolkit user guidance, new methods for exploiting + specific research material, etc. + ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and + skills, intersected with the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have + been chosen on the basis of the scientific excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by + the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding them. The maintenance of the balance between these + elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1. This WP dedicated to project and impact management is vital to the + project because it guarantees coherence with the RESILIENCE RI and delivers the following outcomes: + ●guarantee an adequate identification, coordination and monitoring of the project resources, aims, objectives and + activities + ●ensure an interdisciplinary work within and in-between religious sciences and information sciences; + ●professional communication and dissemination from start to finish + ●guarantee the magnitude of the impact that projects contributing to the construction of an SSH-related research + infrastructure usually have on the involved institutions, the areas where they invest their funds, the societies directly + and indirectly benefiting from them, the human resources they rely on. + ●Quality of the deliverables is assured through strict quality control policies and frequent monitoring + ●Security is ensured for all deliverables and services produced for the Digital Humanities research community + ●All our staff is sufficiently trained to ensure the usage and benefit of our management and development + infrastructures. + One of the most important outcomes though, is the fact that all software and services, including the training and + documentation material, are provided professionally on the ITSERR research community and that we also provide a + service desk to all researchers in need of these products and services. + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + + + + 411 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + produce innovation in science and markets (including the labour market), thus WP1 transforms such a challenge into + the ITSERR organisational and management structures. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D1.1: Detailed Organisational Plan (DOP): The DOP is the plan completely + documenting the project management, its development and tooling, the + organisation governance (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.3), the management processes + (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.4) and also templates supporting the reporting activity. + The consortium management structure consists of a total of four entities, decision + making and advisory bodies. + ●Board of Directors (BoD) consists of the IM, the Scientific Coordinator, + RESILIENCE CEO, a Principal Investigator (PI) of UNIPA and a PI of + UNIMORE. The Board elects a Chair and oversees the ultimate decisions on all + strategic choices and issues concerning the development of ITSERR. The BoD + reviews all WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy and allowing to reach + excellence in the contract outcomes. The fact that the RESILIENCE CEO is + present on the board helps to reinforce the guidance, cooperation, synergy and + synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE. The BoD + meets bi-monthly. + ●Steering Committee: chaired by the IM and composed of the Quality Manager + (QM), the Security Officer (SO), all Team Leaders (TLs) and all WP leaders + (WPLs). This committee reviews the delivery of the WP outcomes in due time and + with the expected quality. They are the warrants of the scientific and technological + excellence produced within the WPs. They meet monthly and produce a Service + Monitoring Report (D1.5) each two months submitted to the Board. + ●International Advisory Board (IAB) consists of 9 representatives of major + international academic institutions and of major stakeholders of the project and + ensures advice and evaluation on the general strategy of the project, providing an + BM1 1 independent view on the effectiveness of the accomplishment of the objectives of + the project and on the impact of its outcome within and outside the academic field. + The IAB receives key WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy to be + assessed and debated with the objective to reach excellence in the contract + outcomes. They will meet each semester. + ●Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF): the ESFRI Stakeholders Forum is a newly + established platform, developed by ESFRI with the ambition to instigate an open + dialogue among the different European research infrastructure stakeholders, to + reinforce the position of RIs as an essential pillar of the European Research Area. + ITSERR annually hosts its stakeholders (public and private research entities, + companies, policy and decision-makers, citizens) in a similar framework, aiming at + the enhancement of networking activities, shared decision-making, knowledge and + technology transfer. One key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR + (findable, etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, + H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. + ITSERR will use Design Thinking and Agile/Scrum as core approaches as there + are in Italy a large pool of such trained experts. Scrum is well suited for its agility, + fast developments of new developments as well as evolutive maintenance for such + research-based, fast changing projects. + To respect Italian and EU accessibility directives and provide accessible services + and tools to the Italian Digital Humanities community, our teams will also endorse + usability and accessibility standards such as accessibility standards (i.e. WCAG 2.1, + ATAG, UAAG and XAG, etc.). For ensuring security-proofed development and + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + + + + 412 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + WP1.5 and WP1.6). For technical documentation, their scope and content are + specified by endorsed development standards such as Rational Unified Process + (RUP). + The European Commission PM² Methodology is the project management + methodology adopted by ITSERR. It is a lean and easy to implement methodology + suitable for any type of project as it enables project teams to manage projects + effectively and deliver solutions and benefits to their organisations and + stakeholders. + + D1.2: Quality Assessment Plan (QAP): Based on ISO 9001 quality approach + principles, a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), imposed on all WPs, will define the + quality expectations for the scope and duration of the contract. The Quality + Indicators of the QAP are always two-fold: 1) Scientific: targeting the scientific + excellence expected by the project and 2) Technical: assessing the methodological + and technical requirements that the deliverable must satisfy to be approved. The + QAP aims to ensure that all activities performed as part of the project comply with + the RESILIENCE’s policies, methodologies, WP requirements and RESILIENCE + quality governance framework. + + D1.3 Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP): The plan adapts the C&D + strategy of RESILIENCE to ITSERR, guaranteeing a sound coordination on + what, how, when and to whom is communicated to the Italian and European + targeted audiences. It covers topics such as strategy for online communication, + social media collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, conferences and workshops, + feedback management, corporate design, tools, channels, touchpoints, monitoring, + analytics and reporting. + + D1.5: Security Management Plan (SMP): The Security Management Plan will be + elaborated to define all aspects of the working practices of the project to guarantee + secure delivery. It will contain a Secure Coding/Development Guidelines aligned + with “ISO/IEC 27034 Information technology – Security techniques”, the + OWASP Developer Guide, Testing Guide and Top-10 Application Security Risks. + Adherence to these guidelines will be strictly monitored by the Security Officer + through, in example code reviews, to ensure the security and quality of the + deliverables. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report and Meeting: The contract execution progress is + presented to the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report + which includes at least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + BM2 2 D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + + + + 413 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM2 2 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM3 3 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM4 4 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + + + + 414 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM5 5 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM6 6 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + BM7 7 the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 415 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM8 8 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM9 9 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + BM10 10 description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + + + + 416 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM13 13 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM15 15 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + BM17 17 submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + + + + 417 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM19 19 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.4 Impact Analysis Report (IAR)(M30): The document reports on the metrics + and indicators of the RESILIENCE impact, the methodology chosen to identify + and measure them according to the RESILIENCE impact areas. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM21 21 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.7: Closure Report(M30): ITSERR management team will provide at the + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + + + + 418 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + the contract and their final status, as well as the financial summary on the + expenses. + The final report shall also include: + ●The Service Level measurement report. + ●Pain points and lessons learned. + ●Improvements that took place during the contract. + ●Knowledge base content and its future evolution. + ●Human resources skills / competencies and training + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + BM1 1 Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + + + + 419 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM2 2 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 420 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + BM3 3 For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + + + + 421 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Number of report not meeting the content + requirements; Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM4 4 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + + + + 422 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + BM5 5 IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + + + + 423 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM6 6 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + + + + 424 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + 425 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + BM7 7 the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + + + + 426 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + BM8 8 conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + + + + 427 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + BM9 9 KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + + + + 428 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM10 10 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + + + + 429 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + BM13 13 KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + + + + 430 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM15 15 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + + + + 431 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + BM17 17 incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + + + + 432 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM19 19 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + + + + 433 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + + 434 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + BM21 21 Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + + + + 435 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 225.784,62 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + + + 436 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report deilvered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 216.427,60 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered,WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 437 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit; ; WPs Security Audit + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 204.662,23 + + IO Desciption + Reports delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication + Manager, Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; + licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 438 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the + project; project management training; language courses + + 48 Activity title + Governance set-up + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_snello.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_snello.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..19b2bf3 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_snello.txt @@ -0,0 +1,21005 @@ + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 465.000,00 296.387,44 761.387,44 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 1.820.013,00 169.602,09 1.989.615,09 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 177.255,46 40.091,77 217.347,23 + costs + +f. Training activities 247.207,91 106.750,00 353.957,91 + +Total 2.709.476,37 612.831,30 3.322.307,67 + + + + + 63 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 64 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [2 - Data Centre Services] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 0,00 0,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 1.680.444,40 0,00 1.680.444,40 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 117.631,11 0,00 117.631,11 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 1.798.075,51 0,00 1.798.075,51 + + + + + 65 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 66 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [12 - Data Management Services] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 0,00 0,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 312.197,40 0,00 312.197,40 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 21.853,82 0,00 21.853,82 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 334.051,22 0,00 334.051,22 + + + + + 67 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 68 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 277.500,00 110.412,56 387.912,56 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 984.250,04 142.197,09 1.126.447,13 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 102.477,04 33.524,38 136.001,42 + costs + +f. Training activities 247.207,91 226.310,00 473.517,91 + +Total 1.611.434,99 512.444,03 2.123.879,02 + + + + + 69 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 70 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [5 - Digital Maktaba] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 151.250,00 203.400,00 354.650,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 367.425,00 1.214.824,84 1.582.249,84 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 42.509,52 119.302,04 161.811,56 + costs + +f. Training activities 123.603,96 286.090,00 409.693,96 + +Total 684.788,48 1.823.616,88 2.508.405,36 + + + + + 71 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 72 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge + Extraction] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 152.500,00 324.300,00 476.800,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 643.735,50 357.644,84 1.001.380,34 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 65.662,62 88.685,44 154.348,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,98 584.990,00 646.791,98 + +Total 923.700,10 1.355.620,28 2.279.320,38 + + + + + 73 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 74 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 203.400,00 435.900,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 183.712,50 653.784,59 837.497,09 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 33.461,01 67.475,42 100.936,43 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,98 106.750,00 168.551,98 + +Total 511.475,49 1.031.410,01 1.542.885,50 + + + + + 75 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 76 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [8 - uBIQUity] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 348.750,00 82.500,00 431.250,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 265.995,00 574.847,07 840.842,07 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 47.358,29 53.486,79 100.845,08 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,94 106.750,00 168.551,94 + +Total 723.905,23 817.583,86 1.541.489,09 + + + + + 77 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 78 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + +Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + + 79 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 80 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 0,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 88.497,50 0,00 88.497,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.352.747,50 0,00 1.352.747,50 + + + + + 81 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 82 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [11 - Trans-National Access] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 124.089,09 0,00 124.089,09 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 470.568,96 0,00 470.568,96 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 41.626,06 0,00 41.626,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 636.284,11 0,00 636.284,11 + + + + + 83 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access operations and + research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 84 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [1 - Project and Impact Management] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 495.535,91 493.875,00 989.410,91 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 1.622.667,50 1.622.667,50 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 294.500,00 489.500,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 200.000,00 0,00 200.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 62.337,51 172.272,97 234.610,48 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + +Total 952.873,42 2.633.315,47 3.586.188,89 + + + + + 85 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication Manager, + Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; licenses; + hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project + management training; language courses + + + + + 86 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 744.750,00 744.750,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.020.000,02 2.020.000,02 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 97.000,00 97.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 245.157,50 245.157,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 640.500,00 640.500,00 + +Total 0,00 3.747.407,52 3.747.407,52 + + + + + 87 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 969.525,00 969.525,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 2.715.568,00 2.715.568,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 197.500,00 197.500,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 329.681,31 329.681,31 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 827.140,00 827.140,00 + +Total 0,00 5.039.414,31 5.039.414,31 + + + + + 88 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università di Napoli L’Orientale] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 290.625,00 0,00 290.625,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 96.066,25 0,00 96.066,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.468.441,25 0,00 1.468.441,25 + + + + + 89 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the +table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Palermo] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 2.189.000,00 0,00 2.189.000,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and 6.728.341,80 0,00 6.728.341,80 + technological + equipment + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 0,00 195.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 150.000,00 0,00 150.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 704.603,69 0,00 704.603,69 + costs + +f. Training activities 803.425,68 0,00 803.425,68 + +Total 10.770.371,17 0,00 10.770.371,17 + + + + + 90 / 453 + 32.3 For each project participant (Applicant and co-Co-Applicants), as per the following table repeat the + table for each Applicant and co-Co-Applicant. + COSTS (€) + PARTICIPANT [Università degli Studi di Torino] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + + a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + + b. Scientific + instrumentation and 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + technological + equipment + + c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAIR principal + implementation + + d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + + e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + + f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + + Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + +Il soggetto beneficiario si dichiara a conoscenza che le variazioni richieste non possono in ogni caso superare, in termini cumulati, il limite del +15% rispetto al totale dei costi ammessi al finanziamento, fermo restando il rispetto dei limiti percentuali, ove presenti, per ciascuna tipologia + + + + + 91 / 453 + PROPOSED PAYMENT PLAN + + + Bimester Payment Amount Cumulative Payment Amount + + 1 531.756,35 € 531.756,35 € + + 2 1.018.683,36 € 1.550.439,71 € + + 3 1.610.259,88 € 3.160.699,59 € + + 4 1.681.736,49 € 4.842.436,08 € + + 5 1.633.393,55 € 6.475.829,63 € + + 6 1.594.766,64 € 8.070.596,27 € + + 7 1.594.766,64 € 9.665.362,91 € + + 8 1.594.766,64 € 11.260.129,55 € + + 9 1.594.766,64 € 12.854.896,19 € + + 10 1.624.633,05 € 14.479.529,24 € + + 13 1.574.766,64 € 16.054.295,88 € + + 15 1.574.766,64 € 17.629.062,52 € + + 17 1.629.977,35 € 19.259.039,87 € + + 19 1.576.683,57 € 20.835.723,44 € + + 21 1.335.747,06 € 22.171.470,50 € + + + + + 92 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 49.846,48 49.846,48 + + 2 BM2 99.692,95 149.539,43 + + 3 BM3 244.276,89 393.816,32 + + 4 BM4 252.998,06 646.814,38 + + 5 BM5 252.998,06 899.812,44 + + 6 BM6 252.998,06 1.152.810,50 + + 7 BM7 252.998,06 1.405.808,56 + + 8 BM8 252.998,06 1.658.806,62 + + 9 BM9 252.998,06 1.911.804,68 + + 10 BM10 252.998,06 2.164.802,74 + + 13 BM13 252.998,06 2.417.800,80 + + 15 BM15 252.998,06 2.670.798,86 + + 17 BM17 252.998,06 2.923.796,92 + + 19 BM19 223.131,60 3.146.928,52 + + 21 BM21 175.379,15 3.322.307,67 + + + 36 WP title + T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies + 37 WP number + 3 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 93 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 8 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + T-ReS is a toolkit of software specifically designed and optimised for the domain of Religious Studies, aimed at empowering researchers + with up-to-date, user-friendly and sustainable tools that take full advantage of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure ecosystem. + The toolkit includes CRITERION, a software for creating critical editions of primary sources, and GNORM, a software that allows a + more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of printed religious normative sources + through data mining techniques and providing a 3D visualisation of the analysed sources. + + Scope and goals + The toolkit for Religious Studies collects a group of software prototype tools (incl. CRITERION and GNORM) that aim at + improving the research experience of scholars, developing a technology that is applicable also to other domains, thanks to the + interdisciplinarity offered by Religious Studies, a cross-fertile domain of knowledge that links philology, theology, history, law, art-history, + linguistics, semantics, philosophy, sociology, and which collaborates with hard-science such as chemistry in the study of primary sources (eg. + analysis of inks in the manuscripts). T-ReS includes two major use cases (CRITERION and GNORM, outlined below), grouped in a + single WP in order to maximise synergy and with the aim of providing a library of reusable software components. Such a library allows to + simplify and speed up the development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi-language, multi-alphabet, multi- + onthologies solutions for the in-depth processing of voluminous corpora; additionally, the library can be applied to and draw from the other + WPs of the project. The prototype tools envisaged specifically for the T-ReS WP are: + 1. The development of CRITERION, an open-source, multi-platform, multi-language and multi-alphabet software for creating critical + editions of primary sources. It is meant primarily for religious texts, where textual criticism and editions in diverse (and often uncommon + or ancient) languages are crucial, not only for the establishment of a text and understanding its context, but also for the impact that + religious texts had and have on the life of millions of people. The current digital resources show various shortages: + - The little support for uncommon and ancient languages in software producing critical editions or, when support exists, lack of tools for + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + + + + 94 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deploying the edition in printable form and/or as a digital edition. + - Lack of room for cooperation, while (especially in Religious Studies) cross-language cooperation and re-use of research data are + quintessential to the field, and therefore crucial. + - The available software is either non-open source, or discontinued. + - The available editors for critical editions provide poor support material even in the case of non-open source editors (such as CTE). + To overcome these challenges, CRITERION is able to produce printed and/or digital editions, in an easily readable and readily easily + interoperable format, with PDF and TEI-based encoding respectively: TEI standards can be applied for the management of next- + generation standoff properties. CRITERION, being Open Source and part of an infrastructural ecosystem, is released to a user + community that can support and enhance its elements (i.e. plug-ins) through a dedicated website and users’ forum (cfr. Stack Exchange). + To achieve its purpose, CRITERION must also be able to incorporate an advanced plug-in model allowing the automatic collation of + witnesses and the production (and visualisation) of sets of variants, of manuscript groups and of relationships between manuscripts in the + form of potential stemmata, supplanting tools such as ChrysoCollate. Most importantly, CRITERION allows also to preserve and re- + use the research data that text editors collect during their work. The research data is preserved in a structured dataset that ensures + Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR principles), thus pushing forward philological research. + + 2. GNORM is a software allowing a more in-depth understanding of normativity through the automatic analysis and categorisation of + printed religious normative sources through data mining techniques based on the word2vec model and applying standoff properties to large + corpora. GNORM is capable of visualising the results of its analysis in 3D, researchers to examine the evolution of religious normative + texts both in their textual and paratextual elements. Given that religious normative texts have their own specific internal consistency, + which is shared by different corpora, ITSERR is able to provide the perfect environment for developing a domain-oriented prototype like + GNORM. Once again, the digital shortages in the currently available tools become GNORM’s challenges: + a) While a 2D visualisation is already possible, it does not allow an easy, user-friendly interface able to show the chronological + stratification of a primary source, both in its textual and paratextual elements. + b) Optimization of already existing 3D visualisation technology for Religious Studies, where the implications of the texts under scrutiny + go well beyond their philological or literary aspects and involve significant historical, theological and juridical aspects. + With GNORM, the glosses are digitally categorised and ordered through metadata assignment obtained through machine learning, and + the properties according to which they are categorised (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.) correspond to the + axes that can be viewed in 3D visualisation (for a maximum of 3 axes). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP: + A3.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of text editors capable of producing critical editions (for CRITERION); + analysis and evaluation of source material, and analysis of suitable software tools (for GNORM); analysis of the features required by a + shared library for ITSERR software tools; formulation of scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + + A3.2: Scientific preparation, divided in: + A3.2.1: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for CRITERION. + A3.2.2: research on software tools identified in A3.1 for GNORM. + A3.2.3: evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION. + A3.2.4: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici. + A3.2.5: corpus-building and corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Talmud Bavli. + + A3.3: Development: + For CRITERION: Optimisation/development of an editor for applying to text TEI-based standoff properties, that are stored in and + retrieved from a graph database, implementation of import/export functions for the graph database used by the editor, and integration of + an automatic collation software (e.g. CollateX or Chrysocollate) with the editor, as a plugin. + For GNORM: Optimisation of data mining algorithm for applying word embedding to the texts in the corpora; + development/optimisation of a software for automatic application of properties to the corpus; development of a 3D visualisation software + for the assigned properties. + For T-ReS in general: development of a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR and also RESILIENCE research services. + A3.4: Test: Testing of CRITERION and GNORM with the scientific community; testing of the shared library across software + developed in other WPs. + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + + + + 95 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A3.5: Operation: CRITERION and GNORM go into production. Creation of a dedicated forum (e.g. through Stack Exchange) for + the CRITERION user community. Running GNORM on the collected corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, and + publication of CRITERION and GNORM for the RESILIENCE marketplace. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + 1. The first output of T-ReS is CRITERION, a software that allows users to produce both digital and/or printed + critical editions, with full representation of a multi-level critical apparatus (for variant readings, sources, intertextual + references etc). In substance, the outcome of CRITERION is a software that is able to: + 1)Annotate a text with TEI standards with standoff properties. + 2)Order the annotated properties in a graph database, and retrieve them for visualisation according to the users’ + input. + 3)Produce an automated collation of witnesses, if required by the user. + 4)Import databases of textual properties from third-party collation software (if the data model is compatible). + 5)Import databases of textual properties created by other users of CRITERION. + 6)Visualise relationships between textual properties (e.g. manuscript groups, variant readings) by retrieving + information from its graph database. + 7)Export results in XML or PDF for digital and printed editions respectively. + 8)Possibility to support the export of result with a future standard model for TEI, standoff annotation. + 2. GNORM will develop a 3D visualisation software that makes possible to visualise the chronological stratification + of the textual and paratextual elements of a source. The axes of the 3D visualisation can be chosen by the users + from an array of properties (e.g. time, chronology, semantic affinity, authorship, language etc.). + The test case will be based on specific corpora: the Corpus Iuris Canonici and the Talmud Bavli. + 3. T-ReS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + Motivation + 1)CRITERION is one of the greatest desiderata of those fields of study whose specialisms are based upon, or at + least strongly characterised by, the production and analysis of critical texts of primary sources. Although this niche + of the market is not devoid of relevant tools, none of the latter simultaneously cover all the requirements set by + CRITERION: for instance, some completely lack the multi-layered approach (like CTE); some are not WYSIWYG + (like most LaTeX-based software); most are not optimised for non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets; some are not + optimised for non-Windows users (again, like CTE); some are not familiar with markup languages (e.g. traditional + word editors, like MS Word, LibreOffice etc.), and some are designed only for online editions). The field of + Religious Studies, where textual criticism is not only relevant per se, but is also connected with historical, theological + and juridical issues, and where connected texts are often extant in different languages and alphabets, is one of the + very few environments where a powerful prototype like CRITERION can be developed. + 2)GNORM. There is the need of a 3D Edition Visualization Technology, which will show the source in different + chronological layers, allowing the final user to visualise the evolution of hermeneutics and the stratification of the + source. Furthermore, words can become tags for all the other sources in which that specific word occurs, displaying + the various layers not only in chronological order but also according to linguistic occurrences and semantic + similarities. Such a functionality allows the data mining of large corpora: this will help scholarship in analysing + different manuscripts and early printings at the same time, with the possibility to show the (hidden) cross-references + and the mutual influences. Since religious normative texts maintain a specific internal consistency, which is shared + by different corpora within the field of Religious Studies, scholars of this domain are the most motivated to develop + a prototype like GNORM, which is bound to positively affect other domains. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + + + 96 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D3.1.1 Whitepaper on Toolkit Libraries + This whitepaper explains the reasoning and possible exploitation of the libraries + adopted by T-ReS tool, and their cross-application (implemented or envisaged) for + BM6 6 tools developed in other IT. The whitepaper also serves as guidelines for adding + new material to the library, and describes its compatibility with other software + tools, especially within RESILIENCE. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D3.1.2 Whitepaper on CRITERION + This whitepaper describes CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor for producing + digital or print-ready critical editions of sources pertaining to the field of Religious + Studies. It explains the challenges given by the high complexity of the languages + and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and how CRITERION applies the TEI + data models for encoding texts, and produces output that can be exported in a + XML or PDF format, to ensure compatibility and long-term usability (for XML) + and ease of use (for PDF). It also illustrates how the editor makes the largest + possible use of standoff properties annotations, that allow to perform nested + BM15 15 and/or multiple tagging of text portions (unlike XML). In addition, the standoff + annotator engine is added to the T-ReS toolkit library (D3.1.1). + D3.1.3 Whitepaper on GNORM + This whitepaper describes GNORM as a software for visualising the chronological + stratification of the textual and paratextual elements of a source presenting the + high complexity of the languages and alphabets studied in Religious Studies and + the related challenges. It details the corpus preparation guidelines and explains how + GNORM extracts the information from the source, annotates it as metadata, and + then visualises it for the user + + D3.1.4 Whitepaper on the results using GNORM on Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + BM17 17 to GNORM, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + + + 97 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating GNORM + on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli. + + D3.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + CRITERION and GNORM is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in + the form of two training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE + infrastructure. + D3.3 Data publishing (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli Metadata) on + BM19 19 RESILIENCE + The database created by using GNORM on the Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud + Bavli corpora is published on RESILIENCE, powered by GNORM itself for + multi-layered and 3D visualisation. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly + community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and + exploring new features of normative religious texts; on the other hand, this + displays the potentialities of GNORM. + + D3.4 Prepare CRITERION and GNORM for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + The technical documentation of T-ReS library, and the technical documentation, + BM21 21 source code and binaries of CRITERION and GNORM are packaged as Open + Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM1 1 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 98 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + + + + 99 / 453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM3 3 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + + + 100 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM4 4 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + + + + 101 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM5 5 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 102 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM7 7 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 103 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM8 8 ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 104 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM9 9 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + + + + 105 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + + + + 106 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM13 13 ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + + + + 107 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + BM15 15 + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + + + + 108 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + BM17 17 For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM19 19 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 109 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM21 21 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 3.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 110 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 3.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + CRITERION + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.1: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.2: Feedback on CRITERION prototype testers, to be assessed within + M16, then M22, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 3.3: usage assessment of CRITERION, to be assessed within 3 years after + the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + GNORM + For development phase: + ●KPI 3.4: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of correctly extracted paratextual elements; min. 85% + ●KPI 3.5: efficiency of the data mining algorithm developed in A3.3, to be + assessed within M20; %age of incorrectly extracted paratextual elements; max. 15% + ●KPI 3.6: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of correctly assigned properties; min. 95% + ●KPI 3.7: efficiency of automatic properties annotation system, developed in A3.3, + to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrectly assigned properties; max. 5% + ●KPI 3.8: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 3.9: Feedback from GNORM prototype testers, to be assessed within M18, + then M24, then M26; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 3.10: usage assessment of GNORM-powered databases (D3.3), to be assessed + within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online + databases. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 49.846,48 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 99.692,95 + + + + + 111 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on toolkit libraries + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 244.276,89 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for CRITERION + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical analysis for GNORM + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + + + + 112 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of CRITERION in PRODUCTION environment; second release of CRITERION in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + First release of GNORM in PRODUCTION environment; second release of GNORM in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 252.998,06 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 223.131,60 + + + + + 113 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 175.379,15 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: CRITERION, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.3 + + + + 114 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the evaluation and supervision of domain-specific requirements for CRITERION, domain-specific testing of + prototype and scientific coordination and support of Analysis and Development teams; its goal is to oversee and direct the development of + CRITERION carried out in A3.2.1 and A3.3 in order to ensure that the prototype corresponds to the needs of the scientific + community. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 213.887,44 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.972,12 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 115 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/CRITERION + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in software research and prototyping for CRITERION. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 116 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Talmud Bavli, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the analysis and preparation of the Talmud Bavli corpus for GNORM; it prepares guidelines for corpus pre- + processing for GNORM, as far as the Talmud Bavli case-study is concerned; it subsequently performs the corpus building and pre- + processing for GNORM (Talmud Bavli), according to the specified guidelines; it also carries out domain-specific testing of the GNORM + prototype, with relation to the Talmud Bavli corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 117 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 3.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of developing the software required for T-ReS tools, carrying out the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design + task ensures that: + + + 118 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)CRITERION development: this task develops CRITERION as a WYSIWYG editor prototype, in cooperation with the scientific + team in charge of A3.2.1. It also develops the plug-in system for CRITERION, and it produces a collation analysis plug-in. + 3)GNORM development: it develops the (meta)data extraction system for GNORM through algorithm optimisation and layout + analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of knowledge extraction + algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. It also produces the architecture of the database where + extracted properties are stored. + 4)GNORM visualisation: it develops a visualisation frontend for GNORM, to allow 3D visualisation and fruition according to users’ + needs and requirements. + 5)T-ReS, general: it develops a shared library for elements created for T-ReS and within other WPs, in order to maximise synergy + between the IT tasks of ITSERR. + All this is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.487.778,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 104.144,46 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 119 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 3.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test CRITERION and GNORM. + Although this may look as an almost final stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the + testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the + conditions of use, etc. + + Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of + CRITERION and GNORM, for the WYSIWYG editor in one case, and for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and + Talmud Bavli) in the other. In addition, this activity tests the T-ReS shared library by coordinating with activities A3.3 and A3.2.1 + and with other WPs; finally, it collects feedback from users of CRITERION and GNORM prototypes, to assist in producing + documentation for the prototypes. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + + 120 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 3.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is properly run, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. + It also sets up GNORM and the databases for the two case-studies (Corpus Iuris Canonici and Talmud Bavli) for Continuous + Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release- + ready state. + The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. For CRITERION, it ensures that a dedicated community + forum is set up, while for T-ReS it deploys the shared library in coordination with other WPs. + Finally, it ensures that the prototypes of CRITERION and GNORM are released and published for the RESILIENCE + marketplace. + + + + 121 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 103.380,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.236,60 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 3.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 122 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary IT work for the development of T-ReS. The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic + understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. + In particular, the activity explores and evaluates text editors capable of producing critical editions for CRITERION, and evaluates + source material and suitable software tools for GNORM; it also analyses features required by a shared library for ITSERR software + tools and, elaborates prototypes for the tools; finally, it produces scientific, user and technical requirements for T-ReS. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 172.500,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 136.620,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.490,67 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + + + + 123 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific preparation - IT/GNORM + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity focuses on preparing and validating the development of IT components for T-ReS. Its goal is to assist and steer the + development and analysis teams in algorithmic research for GNORM. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + + + + 124 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation: GNORM-Corpus Iuris Canonici, domain-specific + 49 Activity short name + 3.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 8 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to: + 1) the analysis and preparation of guidelines for corpus pre-processing for GNORM - Corpus iuris canonici; + 2)application of guidelines and corpus building for GNORM (Corpus iuris canonici); + 3)domain-specific supervision on the testing of the prototype with relation to the Corpus Iuris Canonici case-study. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 146.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 125 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 126 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 2.114,70 2.114,70 + + 2 BM2 113.926,37 116.041,07 + + 3 BM3 130.174,88 246.215,95 + + 4 BM4 130.174,88 376.390,83 + + 5 BM5 130.174,88 506.565,71 + + 6 BM6 130.174,88 636.740,59 + + 7 BM7 130.174,88 766.915,47 + + 8 BM8 130.174,88 897.090,35 + + 9 BM9 130.174,88 1.027.265,23 + + 10 BM10 130.174,84 1.157.440,07 + + 13 BM13 130.174,88 1.287.614,95 + + 15 BM15 130.174,88 1.417.789,83 + + 17 BM17 130.174,88 1.547.964,71 + + 19 BM19 130.174,88 1.678.139,59 + + 21 BM21 119.935,92 1.798.075,51 + + + 36 WP title + Data Centre Services + 37 WP number + 2 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 127 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + To fully serve the scientific community of Religious Studies, the most basic requirement of a RI is to provide best of breed computing + resources supported by secure and robust Data Centre services. In terms of computing resources and services, the scope of ITSERR is to + offer cost savings, scalability, high performance, economies of scale, and more. In cooperation with the RESILIENCE Data Centres + partners, CINECA and the University of Muenster, this WP will deliver IT resources and services including storage, processing power, + databases, networking, analytics and software applications over the internet. By providing these resources, ITSERR allows Italian + Religious Studies researchers to access the computational assets they need, when they need them, without needing to purchase and maintain + a physical, on-premise IT infrastructure. This provides flexible resources, faster innovation, and economies of scale. + + Like RESILIENCE, to provide Data Centre Services (DCS) ITSERR adopts the IT Infrastructure library (ITIL) 2011 approach. + ITSERR’s Operations Officer (OL) is the Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) for all DCS related matters and is supported in these + activities by the DCS operations team members. The DCS operations team will be responsible for applying ITIL-based processes and + principles when managing its activities throughout the duration of the project and during 10 years after its end. The DCS team will + interact with all WPs to organise the services and provide monthly DCS reports to the Team Leaders and the Infrastructure Manager. In + terms of services, the DCS team will participate at least to the following processes: Release and deployment management; Configuration + management; Service level management; Continuous service improvement; Availability management; Capacity management; IT service + continuity management and Access management. + + Scope and goal + The operational and security excellence of the RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure is ensured by the Data Centre (DC) Services + Operation Team and underwritten by the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE. This policy defines security and + management controls to be applied in the provision of DC services by ITSERR teams for all research projects hosted on the resilience- + ri.eu platform. This WP addresses DC security and managements aspects such as: + - Operations of development, testing and operational IT environments + - Follow-up software/hardware vulnerabilities from mainstream vulnerability databases + - Network management procedures + - Production and project services: authentication and authorisation, Access and Authentication Infrastructure (AAI) integration, asset + management, installation and configuration, data handling, vulnerability management, availability monitoring, backup configuration, + change management, user registration, etc. + - Logging and monitoring of systems’ capacity and availability, + - Laptop recommended configuration, anti-virus policy, administrator activities + - Incident/Problem Management procedure also for security events + - Backup management + - Business Continuity management: maintenance of resources for disaster recovery at any delivery location + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE supply of Data Centre Services + + Activities envisaged + A2.1 DC Services Analysis: During the first 2 months of the project, the DC Operations Team will gather the requirements in terms + of: + + + 128 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + of: + - applications hosting requirements, sizing, data and processing capacity, etc. + - project and quality management tools necessary for the follow-up of the project; + - security requirements to operate safely all ITSERR systems and data. + For all requirements gathered, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of + RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. Then DCS solutions are discussed with the various team + members and the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + + A2.2 DC Services Implementation: the DCS team orders the software licences necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services + Then the team proceeds with the installation of the solutions on the RESILIENCE Data Centre partner and starts testing the overall + service levels of the infrastructure. Here also, the security measures to be applied at infrastructural levels are set-up and put in operation. + + A2.3 DC Services Support: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP teams to + ensure a shared knowledge and the respect of the management and security services and principles. They will also assist the WP teams + during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and production). The DCS Team will be in close contact with the + RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and DCS services are used by WP1, WP3 to WP10 and WP12 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + First for all WP teams of this project, and then for the broader community of Italian DH researchers, the provision + of professional IT computing services and expertise including: + ●Authentication and Access Infrastructure services: Today users often need five to ten accounts or digital identities + in their digital research life. RESILIENCE AAI replaces different sign-in techniques for specific tools in the + RESILIENCE Research Infrastructure if there is a restriction necessary. Where agreed by existing institutions, + RESILIENCE AAI will make use of existing academic or research identities by interfacing existing systems. + ●Storage: The storage service provides initially a few PB of storage to the infrastructure projects as a technical core + service to all WPs. An easy and secure access and rights management gets implemented on top of the Resilience + AAI. + ●Hosting: The service implements Virtual Machines (VMs) per WP project so that they can move from one hosting + environment to another if a researcher wants to. This service includes for the ITSERR projects: + ○core VMs installation of Linux based stack such as LAMP. + ○The project [name] hosting is made available under [name].resilience-ri.eu. + ○the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, + change management, staff time management, etc. (See in figure WP2.1 a simplified version of the tools and their + relations within our PM and development hosting environment). + ○The WPs development, test and production environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle + management, documentation lifecycle management, etc. + ○The operation management environment including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services + availability, logging, services performance, etc. + ●Computing capacity: The computing service gives easy access to different kinds of computational resources like + shared memory systems and hadoop/spark clusters of different sizing based on the WP requirements (i.e. Machine + Learning requirements). + ●Security: Resilience as an infrastructure will be designed as a security framework in which security services are + already included such as anti-spam filters, load-balancers, request filtering (e.g. denial-of-service attacks). Due to this + approach, ITSERR reduces the efforts to be invested by each hosted research project to guarantee the security of its + project. + ●Shared knowledge: the DCS team creates and maintains uptodate documentation and training material for all WP + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + + + + 129 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + teams to ensure a shared knowledge and respect of the management and security services and principles. + The WP2 strengthens the RESILIENCE Data Centre Services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3). + Motivation + ITSERR intends to host a huge variety of information systems with a high impact on the Religious Studies Research + ecosystems including both EU and non-EU citizens, agencies, governments, etc. We note that for the information + systems in the scope of ITSERR, the availability, capacity and security of research data and research services is + paramount. Considering this context, we intend to design a security and service strategy embedded in Data Centre + Service delivery ensuring adherence to best of breed rules, policies and guidelines on all levels: ITSERR contract, + Work Packages, future research projects, individual researchers and citizens. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D2.1 Services Level Requirements: The Operations Leader (OL) will lead the + collection of the project services requirements from all management team + members. This information, a mandatory ITIL deliverable will be presented as + Service Level Requirements (SLR) and is an important deliverable that must be + clearly defined, documented, signed off, and understood by all project stakeholders + before the service could be delivered. Its content will cover at least the following + topics: + ●General requirements + ●Services operations requirements (e;g. deployment, infrastructure change + requests, account provisioning, etc.) + ●Requirements on the delivery of services operations (e. g. Service Level to be + provided) + ●Languages supported (i.e. for the support service desk) + ●Normal services hours (i.e. where the ITSERR team can work but also when + researchers using the RI can call the support services) + ●RI support outside of Normal services hours (i.e. On-call service, etc.) + ●Training requirements (i.e. for the ITSERR team but also for the researchers, + future users of the RI) + BM1 1 ●Security requirements + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE(M4, + M12, M24): The DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services + BM2 2 operations. They will be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + + + + 130 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and the Continuous Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service + Lifecycle presented in the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + BM3 3 ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM4 4 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + + + 131 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + BM5 5 information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + BM6 6 The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + + + + 132 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM7 7 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + + + 133 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM8 8 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM9 9 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 134 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + BM10 10 ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + BM13 13 ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + + + + 135 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.2 update of the Operations Management Policy (OMP) of RESILIENCE: The + DCS team will analyse the requirements in terms of services operations. They will + be responsible for the design, the transition, the operation and the Continuous + Improvement of the DCS as specified in the ITIL Service Lifecycle presented in + the annexed figure WP2.5. + The OMP, created by the DCS team, will contain operation guidelines and + responsibilities, service level arrangements and delivery conditions. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + BM15 15 ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + BM17 17 ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + + + + 136 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.3 Data Centre (DC) Operations technical documentation: ITSERR’s OL + ensures that all operations technical documentation is complete and up-to-date + including at least: + ●Release Policy, + ●Release Package definition, + ●Test plan, + ●Controlled environments, + ●Build/Installation plan, + ●Build specification, + ●Deployment plan, + ●Release documentation, etc. + + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + BM19 19 status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + D2.4 Training material for RESILIENCE DC services users: is composed of all + project artefacts that have been produced to share the ITSERR DCS knowledge + BM21 21 among all staff of ITSERR. These artefacts will include: + ●User documentation, + + + + 137 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●User documentation, + ●Operations documentation, + ●Support documentation, + ●learning videos, etc. + + D2.5: Monthly Status Report: The DCS Operation Leader presents a report on the + status of the services to the Infrastructure Manager which includes at least the + information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Material acquired, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + BM1 1 ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + + + + 138 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + BM2 2 DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + + + + 139 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + BM3 3 to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + + + + 140 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + BM4 4 Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + + + + 141 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + BM5 5 obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + + + + 142 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + ll the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + BM6 6 depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + + + + 143 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + BM7 7 below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + + + + 144 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + BM8 8 copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + + + + 145 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + BM9 9 the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + + + + 146 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + BM10 10 automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + + + + 147 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + BM13 13 Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + + + + 148 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + + + + 149 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM17 17 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + + + + 150 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM19 19 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 151 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + BM21 21 All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + + + + 152 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The objectives expected by this WP will be identified in the Services Level + Requirements (See D2.1). The DCS Operation Team will install tools to monitor + automatically some service level indicators on a 24/7/365 basis. If any breach of + the service level is detected, it is logged into the incident management tool and a + copy is automatically submitted to the impacted project leader(s). As explained + below, the DCS team has the duty to find a solution within a certain time frame + depending on the severity and the impact of the incident. The DCS OL has the + obligation to analyse all service logs and report monthly the services status to the + Infrastructure Manager. This report is an input to the bi-monthly report submitted + to the Board members and later to the Ministry. + DC services operation incidents management is monitored weekly by the OL + ●For incident management (Same as WP1 incident mgt KPI 1.1 to 1.3) + ●For DC services operations events + ○KPI 2.3: System/service availability: Uptime and availability of the + PRODUCTION environment and related services as reported by the monitoring + systems; Target: The minimal availability is between 95,00% and 97,00 % over 28 + rolling days + ○KPI 2.4: ibidem for the TEST environment; Target: The minimal availability is + between 90,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.5: ibidem for the DEVELOPMENT environment; Target: The minimal + availability is between 92,00% and 95,00 % over 28 rolling days + ○KPI 2.6: Quantity of incidents due to capacity (CPU, Memory, storage) + shortages: Based on data available in ticketing tool; Target: Zero incidents should + happen because of insufficient service or component capacity + ○KPI 2.7: Quantity of incidents having impacted the security of the ITSERR + environments; Target: 0 per month + BM21 21 ○KPI 2.8: Quantity of incidents having impacted the backup of the ITSERR + environments; Target: max. 1 per month + ○KPI 2.9: Quantity of incidents not solved within the time frame foreseen by the + service level; ; Target per month: 0 for CRITICAL, 1 for HIGH, 3 for + MODERATE and 5 for LOW. + ○KPI 2.10: Quantity of system maintenance operations not performed by the DCS + team (i.e. security patching, etc.); Target: max. 1 per month + + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the Infrastructure Manager and the DCS Operation Leader + ●KPI 2.11: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 2.12: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●KPI 2.13: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 2.14: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 2.15: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 2.16: Service Desk reachability through communication channels during + working hours: 90% of the calls or emails to the Desk are acknowledged; Target: + min. 90% + For DCS services (ITIL Life Cycle) events for the Configuration Management + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + + 153 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + DataBase, the KPIs are the same as for WP1 KPI 1.3 and 1.14. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 2.114,70 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 113.926,37 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + + + 154 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 130.174,84 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + + + + 155 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 130.174,88 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 119.935,92 + + IO Desciption + Documents updated and delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + + + + + 156 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + There are various investigation techniques for arriving at clearer requirements. Considering that users are often unsure about the + requirements, the support of a technical staff member is sometimes necessary. During the first months of the project, the DC Operations + Team will gather the requirements avoiding the eventual problems that can occur in collecting requirements: + ●Lack of relevance to the objectives of the service + ●Lack of clarity or ambiguity in the wording + ●Duplication between requirements + + At the end, the Service Level Requirements (See D2.1) will cover at least the following aspects: + ●ITSERR DCS plans and strategy + ●Vision, mission, goals, and objectives of the ITSERR as a Whole, and of the various WPs + ●Legislative requirements + ●Governance requirements + ●Budgeting and accounting requirements + ●Balanced scorecard + ●Service level requirements and targets + ●Service portfolio and service catalogue + ●Service review meetings + ●Customer satisfaction surveys + ●Continuous Services Improvement (CSI) initiatives already logged in the CSI register + ●Service models + + + 157 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Service models + ●Service Design Package + ●Benchmark and baseline data + ●Risk assessments and risk mitigation plans + + The Services Level Requirements document will be submitted for approval to the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders and will + be signed off before its analysis. + From the SLR accepted, the DCS Operations Team will verify the pertinence of the Operations Management Policy (See Deliverable + 2.2) of RESILIENCE and propose to RESILIENCE team eventual updates. To obtain the best services support, the ITSERR + DCS team will maintain regular contacts with the RESILIENCE DCS team during all phases of the project. + Then the DCS team starts proposing solutions in terms of software and services. These are discussed with the various team members and + the team starts designing a DCS solution architecture. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 55.338,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.873,66 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + + + + + 158 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + DC Services Support + 49 Activity short name + 2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS team prepares documentation and training material for the WP teams to ensure a shared knowledge of the management and + security services and principles to be respected. + They will also assist the WP teams during each phase of their activity (software development, testing and set in production). + The DCS Team will be in close contact with the RESILIENCE DCS team to keep the shared documentation synchronised. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 189.819,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + + 159 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 13.287,33 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Centre Services Implementation + 49 Activity short name + 2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 40 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The DCS ITSERR team synchronises periodically with the RESILIENCE team to verify the status of the DC services and software + available on resilience-ri.eu. + From this information, the software licence necessary to the set-up of the ITSERR services are ordered. + Then the DCS team proceeds with the installation of the solutions (See an example in the annexed figure WP2.1) and starts testing + their operationality. The team proceeds with the installation of the first mandatory environments including: + ●the project management environment including tools covering processes such planning, incident management, change management, staff + time management, etc. + ●The WPs development environments including tools for version control, testing life cycle management, documentation lifecycle + management, etc. + ●The operation management including tools for monitoring security, services capacity, services availability, logging, services performance, + etc. + + When the WPs teams will start deploying their software, a key mission of the DCS Team is to maintain operational and up-to-date the + software stack required by each WP. Among this stack is the RESILIENCE Toolkit composed of new/existing, shared and re-usable + components/services. As explained in WP3, and also in WP4 to WP10, the ITSERR Architecture and Design team will design all + WPs software solutions and will make sure that each time it is possible, an identical functionality will only be developed once and + eventually re-use existing code or software services already deployed in RESILIENCE or other RIs. During the pre-analysis of the WP + scope, the ITSERR team already identified some components that will be potentially re-used as presented in the annexed figure WP2.4. + 54 Activity budget + + + + + 160 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [2 - Data Centre Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.435.287,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 100.470,12 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 161 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 19.224,82 19.224,82 + + 2 BM2 38.449,65 57.674,47 + + 3 BM3 38.449,65 96.124,12 + + 4 BM4 28.733,62 124.857,74 + + 5 BM5 19.017,59 143.875,33 + + 6 BM6 19.017,59 162.892,92 + + 7 BM7 19.017,59 181.910,51 + + 8 BM8 19.017,59 200.928,10 + + 9 BM9 19.017,59 219.945,69 + + 10 BM10 19.017,58 238.963,27 + + 13 BM13 19.017,59 257.980,86 + + 15 BM15 19.017,59 276.998,45 + + 17 BM17 19.017,59 296.016,04 + + 19 BM19 19.017,59 315.033,63 + + 21 BM21 19.017,59 334.051,22 + + + 36 WP title + Data Management Services + 37 WP number + 12 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 162 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP12 works toward the provision to the Research Community of Data Management Services and Reference Data Model services, while + working in full compliance with the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services. + + Scope + As a research infrastructure, ITSERR aims at the spreading of Open Science as a core part of its mission. Our mission is globally to + spread knowledge within an open, FAIR and interoperable ecosystem that is digital AND physical, while respecting environmental goals + (i.e. by favouring activities in person, by choosing zero-impact service providers for digital services, etc). Of course RI users are the only + ones accountable for the data they produce, but recourse to open standards, both in publications and other outputs (data, software etc.) will + be strongly encouraged by ITSERR wherever applicable. In addition, the implementation of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, + Reusable) compliant practices will be mandatory for all research data stored by ITSERR users/researchers. ITSERR therefore intends + to provide to the Research Community Data Management Services to: + - provide advice, guidelines, training and consultancy on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability + - encourage all its users to pursue Open Science practices by favouring i.e. open licences + - release all its publications (intended as documents produced by the consortium for the scope of the RI) in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposit them in a trusted repository + - publish all software engineered by ITSERR as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license types, and deposit + them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab) + - help applicants generating/collecting data and/or other research outputs (except for publications) by asking them to provide a maximum + half page on how the data/research outputs will be managed in line with the FAIR principles. The ITSERR team will then guide them + to the best possible implementation of the FAIR principles for their data. + + ITSERR, as a research infrastructure, does not primarily generate research data or research outputs in itself. Instead, it allows the + collection, the transformation of, and the distribution of data and metadata about research inputs/outputs. As a collector and distributor + of diverse datasets, ITSERR will interface a diversity of users: not only researchers, students or professors that are touched by the domain + of Religious Studies, but also different actors, such as the world of education, religious leaders and representatives, local or even national + political institutions, the press, and any citizen interested in developing an understanding of religions. To tackle this diversity of data, their + usage and the heterogeneity of potential users, ITSERR will deliver Reference Data Model services aiming at: + - Harmonising datasets of different provenance and with different target audiences by providing a RESILIENCE Reference Data + Model maintenance, being supported by data models and standards highly supported by the research community such as schema.org + - Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially thanks to the harmonisation + mentioned above + - Adopting for all WPs, the 4 layers EOSC interoperability framework: technical, semantic, organisational and legal + - In situations where different data licenses collide, ITSERR relies also on legal advice to tackle such issues for its users + - For research data including information about persons (e.g. from survey results, or user activities) that cannot be anonymized, ITSERR + will make sure that it is not made openly available and will be protected in accordance with GDPR + - Delivering guidance and training to researchers on data harmonisation and interoperability + - Improving the support to researchers by continuously collecting their feedback. + + + + 163 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + For its own scope, ITSERR can collect research data (e.g. in the form of surveys, services usage logs, etc.), and output can be generated in + the form, for instance, of software and/or data workflows for trainings or other activities. To this end, the ITSERR teams ensure: + - That data collected is treated according to the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary" + - The findability and accessibility of all data and documents with a public status related to the design of the RI, using trusted repositories + - The adoption of Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation license + In the case of data workflows, interoperable formats and standards are adopted. + + All ITSERR research and information technology outputs are deposited in git repositories and in trusted repositories (such as Zenodo) + respectively. + + The WP12 strengthens the RESILIENCE Reference Architecture Services (See Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3 in Annex 1). + + Activities + A12.1 Data Management Plan (DMP) creation: the Data Management Plan is a prescriptive deliverable designed to ensure that all + data hosted on the ITSERR ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, accessible and reusable) and interoperable in the sense of the + EOSC interoperability framework. All activities performed here are to ensure that the DMP is aligned with RESILIENCE and + ITSERR DMP data requirements. + + A12.2 Reference Data Services: ITSERR must warranty that religious studies researchers have access to the information that they need + for their work, that the quality of the information is maintained at an acceptable level, that data models are syntactically and semantically + interoperable and that legal aspects in the areas of privacy, security, and confidentiality are warranted. A dedicated team of data + specialists works to establish RESILIENCE data management strategy, an agreement on the supportive technologies, the description of + the information management processes and the adopted data standards, data models and policies. + + A12.3 Data Services Execution: This activity is the implementation of the Data Management Strategy published and agreed upon in + A10.2. including tasks such as: + - Identify data sources. + - Identify data stewardship and ownership + - Data matching + - Data profiling + - Update the Reference Data Model, if necessary + - Advises on data interoperability + - Test the data interoperability + - Recommendations to adapt the system(s) data producers and consumers for an improved interoperability + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + All WPs + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + Provision of professional Data Management services for the Italian Religious Studies researchers. By using the + ITSERR data hosting platform, the researchers can benefit the following services: + ●Advices, guidelines and trainings material on FAIR, Open Science, data and services interoperability, etc.; + ●Find and submit publications from the overall RESILIENCE research ecosystem in open access, with a CC BY + license, and deposited in a trusted repository for long term persistence; + ●Find specialised data management software for Religious Studies as either Open Source Initiative or Free Software + Foundation license types, and deposited them in trusted software repositories (e.g. GitLab); + ●Consultancy and expertise provision on research data management; + ●Guidance on harmonising research datasets and making them interoperable; + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + + + + 164 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Making specialised knowledge more findable and accessible also outside the scholarly community, especially + thanks to the harmonisation mentioned above; + ●Involving, where possible, citizens themselves in the production of knowledge (e.g. through surveys, interactive + seminars or educational activities, etc.). + The WP strengthens the RESILIENCE reference architecture services (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM2 2 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM3 3 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM4 4 - + + + + + 165 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM5 5 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + BM6 6 ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM7 7 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + BM8 8 ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + + + + 166 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + BM13 13 and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + BM15 15 ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + + + + 167 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D12.1 Data Management Plan: plan detailing how to make data FAIR – findable, + accessible, interoperable and re-usable, including what data RESILIENCE + manages, whether and how it is made accessible for verification and re-use, and + how it will be curated and preserved. The deliverable will cover at least the + following topic: + ●FAIR Data + ○Making data findable + ○Making data openly accessible + ○Making data interoperable + ●Increase data re-use + ●Costs and allocation of resources + ●Data security + ●Ethical & legal aspects + + D12.2 Reference Data Management Plan: ITSERR technical team knows how + important interoperability is in large organisations. For all WPs to be aligned with + researchers’ needs in terms of data exchange is a high priority task. Also our + Reference Data Management Plan must aim to simplify and speed up the + development of cost-effective, robust, secure and scalable multi-platform, multi- + language, multi-alphabet, multi-ontologies solutions for Data Management. Our + BM21 21 data management plan will be developed upon levels of abstraction: + ●Data Level: Aligned with Master Data management, a common RESILIENCE + Data dictionary should be developed and extended to all Religious Studies + Research information systems. This allows all WPs applications to exchange + information transparently. + ●Service Level: One step above, at service level, a common definition language + should be created in order to interoperate between systems with common semantic + and structured language rules. + The deliverable will cover at least the following topic: + ●Master Data management + ●Data Quality + ●Conceptual Approach + ●Reference Architecture + ○Interoperability + ○Indexation/search tools + ○Reporting + ●Data management and the Service Lifecycle + ○Classifying data + ○Ensuring data ownership + ○Respecting data integrity + ●Reference Data Model + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + BM1 1 Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + + + + 168 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM1 1 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM2 2 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + BM3 3 the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + + + + 169 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM4 4 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM5 5 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + + + + 170 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM6 6 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + BM7 7 ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + + + + 171 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM8 8 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM9 9 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + BM10 10 data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + + + + 172 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM13 13 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + BM15 15 gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + + + + 173 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM17 17 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM19 19 ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + + + + 174 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + Master Data Management events are monitored monthly + ●KPI 12.1: Number of Master Data Model release back-outs: Based on the release + data available; Zero releases + ●KPI 12.2: Data test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by + the total number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be + gathered from the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + ●KPI 12.3: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 12.4: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 12.5: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + BM21 21 quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + ●KPI 12.6: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1 per month + ●KPI 12.7: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + ●KPI 12.8: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 19.224,82 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + + + + 175 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 38.449,65 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 28.733,62 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + + + + 176 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 19.017,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Document updated and delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + + + + 177 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 19.017,59 + + IO Desciption + Final version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + Data Management Plan + 49 Activity short name + 12.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 6 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 178 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Management Plan (DMP) is intended to be a living document in which information can be made available on a finer level of + granularity through updates as the implementation of the project progresses and when significant changes occur. + Additionally, no single strategy can cover the integration and interoperation of the diverse datasets to be included in ITSERR: for these + reasons, the Data Management Plan is accurately designed to ensure that data that enters the ecosystem is FAIR (findable, interoperable, + accessible and reusable). + The following activities will be performed: + ●Analysis of RESILIENCE Data Management Plan + ●Collecting data services requirements on data produced and collected by the ITA WPs + ●Virtual information sessions on proper data handling with RESILIENCE Team, incl. GDPR, Open Science, FAIR principles + ●Eventual updates to RESILIENCE Data management plan + ●Presentation of RESILIENCE DMP and Q&A to all WP leaders (incl. FAIR, Open Science principles, tools, etc.) + ●Reviews and revision of RESILIENCE DMP proposed to RESILIENCE Team + ●Data Management Services (DMS) + ●Data Services Brainstorming + ●Preparation Workshops + ●ITSERR Data Management Services Analysis + ●Set-up of the ITSERR data handling and organisation + ●Set-up long term archiving and publication of core Resilience data according to Open Science and FAIR principles for ITSERR. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 54.482,40 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 179 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3.813,77 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Reference Data Services + 49 Activity short name + 12.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + ITSERR has the objective to re-use and set-up a Reference Data Model by developing a baseline operational data model and maintain + it as a long term Reference Data Model for data managed on the RESILIENCE ecosystem. + Our Reference Data Model is build as such: + ●Collecting (Meta)Data requirements from all stakeholders + ●Building out the infrastructure to support a reference data model + ●Creation of a process for updating the model (including data governance approval) + ●Use the model content to organise and structure data hosted on RESILIENCE + ●Keep refining the model while supporting new projects on the platform. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 106.646,40 € + + + + + 180 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.465,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 48 Activity title + Data Services Execution + 49 Activity short name + 12.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The Data Services Execution is the implementation of a series of artefacts(software, guidelines, training, etc) helping each work package + to implement adequately their Data Management LifeCycle (DMLC). This activity will perform the following tasks: + ●Selection and prioritisation of services to be implemented for ITSERR: based on the WP data management requirements, we’ll identify + a set of tools to be created and/or set-up to implement the DMLC + ●Architecture and design of the software components implementing the data management services to be hosted within RESILIENCE + ●Development and testing of the services + + + 181 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [12 - Data Management Services] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Development and testing of the services + ●Operation: the Data Centre Services team ensures that all artefacts produced, transformed and managed by the tools are available + 24/7, that the back-up of data is performed and that the project capacity is sufficiently sized (ie: memory, space, processing). + ●Documentation writing for RESILIENCE: this documentation becomes part of the RESILIENCE knowledge management + repository + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 151.068,60 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.574,80 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: 0 + + + + + 182 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 34.819,76 34.819,76 + + 2 BM2 69.639,51 104.459,27 + + 3 BM3 148.779,46 253.238,73 + + 4 BM4 153.140,02 406.378,75 + + 5 BM5 153.140,02 559.518,77 + + 6 BM6 153.140,02 712.658,79 + + 7 BM7 153.140,02 865.798,81 + + 8 BM8 153.140,02 1.018.938,83 + + 9 BM9 153.140,02 1.172.078,85 + + 10 BM10 183.006,46 1.355.085,31 + + 13 BM13 153.140,02 1.508.225,33 + + 15 BM15 153.140,02 1.661.365,35 + + 17 BM17 153.140,02 1.814.505,37 + + 19 BM19 153.140,02 1.967.645,39 + + 21 BM21 156.233,63 2.123.879,02 + + + 36 WP title + DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum + 37 WP number + 4 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 183 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 7 Dipartimento di Ingegneria CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + DaMSym is intended as a software prototype for applying text understanding techniques to the investigation of issues on texts with a high + density of semantic information, determined by particular characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. Adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities, DaMSym benefits from an ideal case-study presented by Religious Studies, namely the translations of the Nicene- + Constantinopolitan Creed, a text with a strong dogmatic claim. DaMSym is meant to improve (and, in a virtuous circle, take advantage + from) the capabilities of the RESILIENCE research infrastructure, by bringing together cultural, historical and theological factors to + produce a new type of semantic analysis tool, capable of producing novel, domain-related knowledge, providing scholars with new insights. + + Scope and goal + The recent developments in Artificial Intelligence ensuing from the so-called connectionist turn and the development of Deep Neural + Networks have enabled new approaches to text mining and computational text analysis and understanding. In particular, the new + techniques of vector semantics and word embeddings provide new affordances for the establishment of the contextual meaning of single + words or phrases in a text. As well, recently developed Deep Neural Networks based on the fully-attentive paradigm, like BERT and + GPT-x has enabled a wide range of textual understanding and generation applications, from text classification to entity extraction and + machine translation, even in presence of a limited training set (few-shot or zero-shot settings). + The traditional study of Biblical concordances found its first computer-generated production as early as in 1957 and several search and + study systems for the Bible have been implemented since. While research on the Bible (and other sacred texts) can be pursued by improving + the implementation of tools for textual analysis, there is a type of texts relevant to Religious Studies that requires different tools and + different types of analyses. This type of texts is exemplified by the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. The Creed, along with other credal + formulas, presents a series of specific features: + - It is a “vehicular” text: its purpose is to transmit a formula of faith, with all its wide-ranging implications. + - It has a dogmatic claim: it has characteristics of conceptual normativity and formularity. + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + + + 184 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + - It is a formulaic text: it is repeated in liturgy and has to be learnt by heart, thus impacting the target culture with a much broader + spectrum than other written texts (e.g. involving the non-literate). For the same reason, it has been translated extensively (often even + multiple times) into various languages, from the 4th century AD down to present times. + - It is relatively short, but also coherent in and of itself as well as with all its religious implications (theological, liturgical, doctrinal etc.). + - It serves (and served) a catechetical purpose. + At the same time (and for the same reasons) it can be (and often is) adapted to the target culture to a much greater degree than the sacred + texts. This means that the translated text incorporates semantic values from the target culture, while transmitting other semantic elements + from the language (or culture) of origin. + Because of these features, the aim of this WP is to develop software and algorithms for applying text understanding techniques to the + investigation of semantic textual issues, with the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a case study, adopting a + connectionist approach based on the connection between advanced Deep Learning approaches, large-scale learning and Digital + Humanities. The reasons for the methodological shift from conventional probabilistic methods to a machine learning approach have + already been highlighted in recent research. While in conventional probabilistic methods the choice was for topic modelling applications, a + machine learning approach envisages the use of more advanced approaches for textual understanding, ranging from the word2vec model for + word embeddings to more powerful approaches like GPT-x and BERT. Through a vector semantics approach, it is possible to achieve a + form of “computational close reading” that allows disambiguation and the detection of diachronic lexical semantic change. On the other + hand, BERT is one of the state-of-the-art models for text understanding, and allows to understand and classify text by considering an + entire sentence or an entire document, while generative approaches like GPT-3 can perform more sophisticated tasks like machine + translation between several languages, question answering and summarization even in presence of limited training data, thanks to the few- + shot abilities it exhibits. + Overall, the recent connectionist turn in Artificial Intelligence enables the direct application of computational analysis to lexical textual + phenomena and significantly enhances the effectiveness of digital interpretive and editorial practises. The critical and historical investigation + of the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into several languages provides a fitting case study in this respect. + The specific meaning of a word or phrase in a text can be inferred from the contextual analysis of the specific corpus of the author’s + writings and of coeval relevant literature. This is particularly significant for the examination of the diachronic lexical change among the + successive translations of a text: in this case study, the translations of the Creed are compared with a corpus that is contemporary to the + translation itself, and is of course in the same language as the translation. This allows the comparison of different interpretations of one + and the same textual expression, across different languages and alphabets, providing essential information for the advancement of + Religious Studies but also for other connected domains (such as philological criticism). + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A4.1: Analysis and prototyping: Analysis and evaluation of digital and non-digital texts of the Creed, in original ancient languages and + in translations; analysis and recognition of word embedding tools to be adapted in later stages; formulation of scientific, user and technical + requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + + A4.2.1: Scientific preparation/general: validation of technical and scientific requirements and scientific coordination/support for other + activities in the WP. + A4.2.2: Scientific preparation/case-study: corpus-building and corpus preparation for DaMSym. + A4.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation. + A4.2.4: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, Greek and Latin texts. + A4.2.5: Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations: corpus pre-processing for DaMSym, translations. + + A4.3: Development: training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding, optimisation and fine tuning of word embedding tool(s), + development of an APIs (for storing extracted properties in a graph database, for automatic standoff annotation, for machine translation, + for text classification); implementation of functions for the standoff platform, to present researchers and other users with an accessible + software prototype. + + A4.4: Test: testing of DaMSym in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation) and in its pre-release form (as a + full software protype for analysis of the Creed). Testing of DaMSym among a sample of researchers, for user and scientific feedback. + + A4.5: Operation: DaMSym goes into production. Running DaMSym on the Creed corpus, release of the service in RESILIENCE, + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + + + 185 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and publication of DaMSym for the RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The result of the WP is a combined software that allows to analyse and annotate corpora to understand, classify and + evaluate contextual semantics of any given text, in different languages and with special attention to uncommon and + ancient languages. This is especially useful in analysing translations of texts where semantics play a crucial role, such + as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The WP produces a prototype capable of applying word embedding on + multiple languages, operating machine translation of words, sentences and texts inside the textual corpora, + classifying and understanding text, according to the specific needs highlighted by humanities experts, executing + standoff annotation and visualising properties in a graph database. DaMSym is used in the critical case study of the + Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but can be applied to test-cases with high conceptual normativity presented by all + Humanities. + The prototype strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated + to the enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Religious Studies are characterised by text presenting a peculiar conceptual normativity, and the existing corpora + analysis tools do not allow for a full, in-depth understanding of the relationships between the text and its corpus, + and smaller and bigger corpora. Texts like the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople need to be placed in their linguistic, + cultural, chronological and theological framework to be fully interpreted semantically. This type of investigation + must make use of a vast amount of data, of diverse nature and complexity. To fully exploit the existence of such + diverse and extensive data, suitable digital tools are needed. To produce such tools a synergy between different types + of expertise can only be developed within the ecosystem of RESILIENCE, which is a domain-specific Research + Infrastructure. + The resulting prototype for textual understanding and data mining, however, can be applied even beyond the case + study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: the software developed by the WP make it possible to assess the + value as well as the semantic and cultural context of each translation, taking into account multi-disciplinary factors + (here represented by historical, theological and even liturgical elements) that are otherwise missed in purely text- + related or language-related tools. From a more technical point of view, the use of state-of-the-art neural networks + for textual understanding, specifically re-trained for the use-case, and a graph database allows a visual representation + of the words in context while resulting in a better disambiguation of word meanings which is the main point of the + research. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + + + + 186 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D4.1.1 Whitepaper on DaMSym + This whitepaper describes the reasoning and possible exploitation of DaMSym, + intended as a software that performs several functions: + 1)word embedding extraction + 2)machine translation + BM13 13 3)text classification and document understanding + 4)standoff properties annotation + 5)properties visualisation. + Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes DaMSym in + its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in subsequent + phases. + + D4.1.2 Whitepaper on the results using DaMSym on Nicene-Constantinopolitan + Creed + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to DaMSym, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It presents the results of its operation “on the field”, describing both + the scientific results and the properties database obtained by operating DaMSym + on the Creed corpus. As such, this deliverable not only validates DaMSym’s + prototype, but also provides researchers with new material for their studies + + BM17 17 - + + D4.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + DaMSym, and also during the preparation of D4.1.1 and D4.1.2 is systematised + BM19 19 and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a training package to be integrated + with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The package includes and use-case samples + (drawn from D4.1.2), as well as templates. + + D4.3 Data publishing (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum metadata) on + RESILIENCE + The database resulting from the application of DaMSym to the Creed corpus is + published, powered by DaMSym for browsing, consultation and user-only + annotation, through RESILIENCE. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research + acquisitions and exploring the connections between religious texts and their + BM21 21 commentaries; on the other hand, this displays the potentialities of DaMSym, + setting a new standard for tools dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also + for other domains. + + D4.4 Prepare DaMSym for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of DaMSym are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + + + + 187 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM1 1 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM2 2 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 188 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM3 3 ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + + + + 189 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM4 4 ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + + + + 190 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM5 5 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 191 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + + + + 192 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM8 8 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + + + + 193 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM9 9 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM10 10 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 194 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM13 13 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + + + + 195 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + BM15 15 assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + + + + 196 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + BM17 17 ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM19 19 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 197 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 4.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 4.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 4.1: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of correctly extracted properties; min. 90% + ●KPI 4.2: Efficiency of word embedding extraction tool for DaMSym; to be + assessed within M12; %age of incorrectly extracted properties; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.3: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + + + + 198 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M18; %age of correct translations; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.4: Efficiency of the machine translation tool for DaMSym; to be assessed + within M18; %age of incorrect translations; max. 10% + ●KPI 4.5: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of correct classifications; min. 85% + ●KPI 4.6: Efficiency of the text classification and document understanding tool + for DaMSym; to be assessed within M20; %age of incorrect classifications; max. + 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 4.7: Feedback on DaMSym platform (as described in D4.1.1), to be assessed + within M16, then M22, then M24; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 4.8: usage assessment of D4.3 (the published database on the Creed powered + by DaMSym), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 34.819,76 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 69.639,51 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 148.779,46 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + + + 199 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on DaMSym; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 200 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 183.006,46 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; second release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 153.140,02 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 156.233,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 201 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, original texts + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 202 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 7 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the Greek and Latin texts of the Creed, to prepare them for analysis through + DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.652,28 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 123.603,95 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Pre-processing, translations + + + + 203 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out corpus pre-processing on the texts of the Creed in the translations defined in A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, to prepare + them for analysis through DaMSym. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + + + + 204 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out research on software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation; in a second stage, it oversees + the development activity (A4.3) in its realisation/adaptation of software tools for word embedding and platforms for standoff annotation, + ensuring that it remains in line with the scientific principles formulated in A4.1. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 205 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/general + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise. + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities and it validates technical and + scientific requirements, with the assistance of domain-specific experts for IT and for Religious Studies and by coordinating with other WP + activities. + It checks that software development and corpus preparation are performed in accordance with the technical and domain-specific + requirements, and it assists in updating these requirements when needed. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 206 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 27.912,56 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.641,33 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 4.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + 207 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up DaMSym and the database on the Creed for + Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always + in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for DaMSym, based on the works of A4.1-A4.4. + 2)It provides that DaMSym goes into production and that the database for the Creed powered by DaMSym is published for + RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + It provides that DaMSym’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 0,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + + + + 208 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 4.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test DaMSym. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. + The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their + problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, who + provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of DaMSym, for research on the two case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, + updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products + offered to the researchers. + In particular, DaMSym is tested first in its components (word embedding, properties database, annotation), in order to assess KPIs and + assist the Development activity (A4.3), then DaMSym is tested its pre-release form (as a full software tool for analysis of the Creed), for + collecting user and scientific feedback. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,04 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 209 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 4.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity aims at finalising all the work validated by the previous phases, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this task brings different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and lead to smarter, more + sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. The Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + + + + 210 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)Training of the identified tool(s) for word embedding on the target languages, collecting training data from freely-available sources and + from the digital texts collected in A4.2 + 3)Optimisation and fine-tuning of the most performant toolkit component for word embedding on original texts, and on the translations + (at least 5 languages in 3 different non-Latin and non-Greek alphabets). + 4)Development and training of text understanding and classification tools for the digital texts collected in A4.2, on the basis of an + assessment of existing neural network architectures (e.g. GPTx-like) + 5)Development of an API that turns word embedding vector clusters into properties stored in a graph database (such as Neo4J). + 6)Development of an API for automatically annotating the vector clusters contained in the database as standoff properties in texts of the + corpus. + 7)Development of a machine translation API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 8)Development of a text classification API, specifically developed on the textual corpora of the use-case. + 9)Implementation of functions for the standoff properties platform, in synergy with the T-ReS library, to be performed on the whole set of + different language corpora, and finalisation of DaMSym as an accessible software prototype for researchers and other users. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 800.538,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 56.037,65 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 211 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 4.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary work for the development of DaMSym. + The first stage has the aim of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This + involves consulting researchers and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the corpus of interest related to + the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, through engaging with researchers to produce a recognition of the corpus, analysing the digital and + non digital texts to be included and expressing the research issues involved. + To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this activity, for the corpus on the Creed and for + DaMSym as a software. + In parallel, digital resources for the languages involved are analysed, and tools for the required text processing functions (word embedding + extraction, properties database organisation, standoff properties platform) are explored. + This results in a formulation of technical requirements for DaMSym and its corpus. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 212 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/case-study + 49 Activity short name + 4.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of collecting the corpus for the Creed and its translations, ensuring that each text (or translation) of the Creed + can be compared with a sizeable corpus of literature of the same language and of the same period as each text (or translation). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 213 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene- +Constantinopolitan Symbolum] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 277.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 214 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 35.919,24 35.919,24 + + 2 BM2 71.838,48 107.757,72 + + 3 BM3 142.316,00 250.073,72 + + 4 BM4 186.551,53 436.625,25 + + 5 BM5 186.551,53 623.176,78 + + 6 BM6 186.551,53 809.728,31 + + 7 BM7 186.551,53 996.279,84 + + 8 BM8 186.551,53 1.182.831,37 + + 9 BM9 186.551,53 1.369.382,90 + + 10 BM10 186.551,57 1.555.934,47 + + 13 BM13 186.551,53 1.742.486,00 + + 15 BM15 186.551,53 1.929.037,53 + + 17 BM17 186.551,53 2.115.589,06 + + 19 BM19 186.551,53 2.302.140,59 + + 21 BM21 206.264,77 2.508.405,36 + + + 36 WP title + Digital Maktaba + 37 WP number + 5 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 215 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + Digital Maktaba (in Arabic "maktaba", "library": the "place where books are located", henceforth DM) is conceived as a response to + the need to create multi-alphabet digital catalogues for the management of works in non-Latin alphabets and aims to become an + instrument exportable to other realities than that of the religious sciences where it was born. + DM is an important addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem because it is intended to offer a helpful and innovative service to + libraries specialised in religious studies that need to manage cultural heritage data in non-latin alphabets. For this reason some resources + of the FSCIRE Library in Palermo constitute a rather unique and exclusive case study which includes specialised knowledge, non-latin + alphabets (e.g. Arabic) and multilingual variation in a comprehensive digital corpus of documents. From this point DM accepts the + challenge posed by non-latin alphabets in matters of data extraction, big data management and the challenge of librarianship and + cataloguing at large. + + To date, for example, the Italian National Library Service does not provide for such a possibility yet and also imposes ineffective + transliteration systems in contrast to the adjustments being made in other countries and the standards set by the International Standard + Bibliographic Description. The choice of systems to be adopted is still subject to the influence of the ideological element and the cultural and + political dimension of the choice itself. + + The aim is to establish procedures for the extraction, management of libraries and archives and to develop virtuous models in the field of + cataloguing that can accommodate texts written in non-Latin alphabets, starting with the case of the Arabic alphabet. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A5.1 Analysis. This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital + Maktaba, and setting the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + T5.1.1 Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the historical-critical, + linguistic perspective + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + + + + 216 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + T5.1.2 Preliminary recognition of: + - OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + - text mining techniques + - long term preservation of digital documents techniques + - big data management tools/techniques + - (interpretable) machine learning techniques + + A5.2.1 Scientific preparation/OCR: Definition of text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; + exploiting object fusion techniques based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools + A5.2.2 Scientific preparation/Extraction: Definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + exploiting multilingual resources + exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition + A5.2.3 Scientific preparation/Database Architecture: Definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the + extracted catalogue data and metadata, to be successively implemented in A5.3. + A5.2.4 Scientific preparation/Validation: Supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, + both on samples of materials found in WP1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + + A5.3 Development: this activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and + Supervised Cataloguing, performing the following tasks: + T5.3.1 design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques for interfacing + / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + - Long term preservation practices + - Big data management / distributed + T5.3.2 definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + T5.3.3 design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + T5.3.4 definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and interpretable) ML + algorithms: + - to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + - to automate publication type recognition + - to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + T5.3.5 Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in WP1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + A5.4 Test : this activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the + following tasks: + T4.1 Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + T4.2 Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + T4.3 Use case workshop + + A5.5 Operations: A web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project + Digital Maktaba is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for + publishing in RESILIENCE marketplace + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + outcome + The aim of the WP is to ultimately create a supervised intelligent cataloguing tool prototype. Advanced search + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + + + + 217 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + techniques (including full-text and approximate search) will be developed in order to efficiently provide the + information required and make searches more efficient and effective w.r.t. typical cataloguing tools. Intelligent and + AI-based techniques will also have a prominent role: intelligent assistance features will be designed and implemented + in order to bring new levels of assistance to the cataloguing process. Data entering will be supported by suggestions + derived from user feedback and previously entered data; supervised machine learning models will enable automatic + publication type recognition and provide a systematisation and classification of data according to the topographic + classification of the FSCIRE library. The design of incremental ML algorithms will ensure that the prototype can + "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use. + + DM strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + The information retrieval and text extraction fields on Arabic scripts have made huge strides in the last decades, but + there have not been many projects aimed at exploiting them for the curation of new and innovative digital libraries. + In 2009 the Alexandria library announced the creation of the Arabic Digital Library as part of the DAR project + (Digital Assets Repository), employing a sophisticated OCR system for the Arabic language. Other projects are + Arabic Collections Online (ACO), a publicly available digital library of public domain Arabic language content, and + the British Library projects, focused toward the digitization of handwritten Arabic and Persian manuscripts. All + these projects target only a part of the languages considered in DigitalMaktaba and aim at the pure digitization of a + (smaller) library of books, often with consistent manual work. + Focusing on text and metadata extraction tools available in state of the art, most of existing OCR / text acquisition + systems do not offer consistent and high quality results on all the languages we plan to consider in this project. Most + tools require manual work (batch process is not always possible), and none of them returns all the rich information + and metadata necessary to our project goal. Instead, our goal in this project is to obtain an intelligent (and + automated) system producing high quality outputs on the different languages and with a rich metadata content, + minimising the manual work required for cataloguing. + This is especially relevant since now even the smallest libraries must adapt acquisitions to the needs of culturally + heterogeneous users and are often unable to do so due to the impossibility of managing this data. Hence the urgency + of a global sharing of multicultural heritage. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + D5.1.1 Whitepaper on new algorithms + This whitepaper describes the developed algorithms for automatic text recognition, + metadata and knowledge extraction (A5.2). In particular, it details: + BM7 7 ○A prototype of algorithms for automatic text recognition. + ○A prototype of algorithms for metadata extraction. + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + + + 218 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○A prototype of knowledge extraction techniques. + ○A report with description of the validation of the above-mentioned algorithms. + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + D5.1.2 Whitepaper on the software DIGITAL MAKTABA + This whitepaper describes the Digital Maktaba prototype, in its Data Management, + Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing features. In particular, it details: + ○A database design report + BM17 17 ○A prototype of advanced search techniques + ○A prototype of web user interface + ○A prototype of intelligent assistance ML techniques + ○A final report with description of the integrated engineered software prototype. + ○A validation of the final prototype, with a use case. + + D5.3 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + Digital Maktaba is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + BM19 19 package includes a use-case sample (drawn from D5.1.2), as well as templates. + + D5.4 Data publishing on RESILIENCE + The web portal for Digital Maktaba, with video and content to report on the + progress of the project Digital Maktaba is published on RESILIENCE. + + D5.5 Prepare DIGITAL MAKTABA for publication to RESILIENCE + marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of Digital Maktaba are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM1 1 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 219 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM2 2 ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + + + + 220 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM3 3 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM4 4 ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + + + + 221 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM5 5 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM6 6 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 222 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM7 7 ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + + + + 223 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM8 8 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM9 9 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + + + + 224 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM10 10 For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + + + + 225 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM13 13 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM15 15 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 226 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM17 17 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + + + 227 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + BM19 19 assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 5.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM21 21 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 5.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 5.1: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of correctly recognised text; min.90% + ●KPI 5.2: Efficacy of algorithm for automatic text recognition (D5.1.1), to be + assessed within M16; %age of incorrectly recognised text; max.10% + ●KPI 5.3: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + + + + 228 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + within M16; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + ●KPI 5.4: Efficacy of algorithm for metadata extraction (D5.1.1), to be assessed + within M16; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max. 10% + ●KPI 5.5: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of correctly catalogued; + min.90% + ●KPI 5.6: Efficacy of intelligent and automated cataloguing prototype (D5.1.2), to + be assessed within M20, then M24, then M28; %age of incorrectly catalogue + entries; max.90% + For ex-post assessment: + ●KPI 5.7: integration with national bibliographic systems, to be assessed within 3 + years of the project; # of libraries using DigitalMaktaba + ●KPI 5.8: use by the research communities, to be assessed within 3 years of the + project; # of users accessing DigitalMaktaba-powered catalogues. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 35.919,24 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 71.838,48 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 142.316,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis (scenario, OCR and text mining tools) + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 229 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis (OCR and text mining tools applied to DigitalMaktaba) + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 186.551,57 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 230 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + First release of DigitalMaktaba SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of DigitalMaktaba SW in TEST + environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 186.551,53 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 206.264,77 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + + + + 231 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/OCR + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity defines text acquisition/OCR techniques for assisting/automating text extraction; it also explores exploiting object fusion + techniques, based on fuzzy matching for aligning/merging the outputs of different OCR tools, in order to maximise the efficiency of the + Development team. + 54 Activity budget + + + + 232 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs covering PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, + travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Extraction + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + + + + 233 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The goal of this activity is the definition of techniques for extracting syntactic metadata, through the following tasks: + ●Definition of knowledge extraction techniques for linguistic / semantic metadata: + ●exploiting multilingual resources + ●exploiting techniques for title and author automatic recognition. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 21.016,80 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 179.340,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Operations + + + + 234 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 5.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity ensures that Digital Maktaba goes into operation and is properly set up, and that, from a data management perspective, big + data management techniques and tools are properly applied to the database for storing the extracted data and metadata. Special focus is + given to the data interchange and long-term preservation aspects, in order to allow data interchange with catalogue data from other + libraries and make the managed data readable and usable also on a long-term basis. + Finally, a web portal for Digital Maktaba is constructed, with video and content to report on the progress of the project Digital Maktaba + is prepared, and the portal is published on RESILIENCE. The Digital Maktaba engine is also prepared for publishing in the + RESILIENCE marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 318.827,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 235 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 22.317,94 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 5.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of integrating and testing the solutions proposed and developed in A5.1-A5.3, carrying out the following tasks: + ●T5.4.1 [M 24-26] Integration of the solutions developed in WP2 and WP3 in the system prototype + ●T5.4.2 [M 26-28] Validation in terms of accuracy and completeness of the information extracted. + ●T5.4.3 [M 28-30] Use case workshop + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 195.615,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + + 236 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 13.693,05 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 5.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the IT development for tools necessary for Data Management, Interactive Search and Supervised Cataloguing, + performing the following tasks: + ●T5.3.1 [M 14-18] design of a database for storing the extracted catalogue data and metadata, including data management techniques + for interfacing / interchange with catalogue data from other libraries and exploiting: + ○Long term preservation practices + ○Big data management / distributed + ●T5.3.2 [M16-20] definition of advanced search techniques (including approximate and full-text search) for searching archive data + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + + + 237 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●T5.3.3 [M16-22] design of a web user interface for cataloguing new documents and searching the archive + ●T5.3.4 [M16-24] definition of intelligent assistance techniques based on similarity search and supervised (incremental and + interpretable) ML algorithms: + ○to assist data entering also based on suggestions from user feedback and previously entered data + ○to automate publication type recognition + ○to ensure that the prototype can "learn" and become more and more automated and effective with use + ●T5.3.5 [M 25-26] Validation of algorithms on samples of materials found in A5.1 and on corpora existing in the literature. + + ITSERR development activity is based upon DevSecOps to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 829.775,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 58.084,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 238 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Validation + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out supervision and validation of the developing/developed recognition and extraction techniques, both on samples of + materials found in A5.1 and on larger corpora, available in the literature and provided by partner institutions. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 239 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.326,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis + 49 Activity short name + 5.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to carrying out tasks of analysis and evaluation of the main challenges posed by Digital Maktaba, and setting + the roadmap on how to face them. It is articulated as follows: + ●T5.1.1 [M 1-6] Preliminary activity of recognition of the operational scenario, focusing on the problems from both the IT and the + historical-critical, linguistic perspective + ●T5.1.2 [M 1-6] Preliminary recognition of: + ○OCR tools and technologies for the languages considered by the project linguistic tools (multi-lingual resources such as dictionaries, + thesauri, tools for processing text) available in the languages considered by the project + ○text mining techniques + ○long term preservation of digital documents techniques + ○big data management tools/techniques + ○(interpretable) machine learning techniques + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + + + + 240 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 171.810,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.026,69 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Database Architecture + 49 Activity short name + 5.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 241 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [5 - Digital Maktaba] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity is tasked with the definition of requirements and specification for a database capable of storing the extracted catalogue data + and metadata. The database, according to the specifications designed in this activity, is to be successively implemented in A5.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 151.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 242 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 50.134,56 50.134,56 + + 2 BM2 100.269,12 150.403,68 + + 3 BM3 167.994,00 318.397,68 + + 4 BM4 172.354,59 490.752,27 + + 5 BM5 172.354,59 663.106,86 + + 6 BM6 172.354,59 835.461,45 + + 7 BM7 172.354,59 1.007.816,04 + + 8 BM8 172.354,59 1.180.170,63 + + 9 BM9 172.354,59 1.352.525,22 + + 10 BM10 172.354,58 1.524.879,80 + + 13 BM13 152.354,59 1.677.234,39 + + 15 BM15 152.354,59 1.829.588,98 + + 17 BM17 152.354,59 1.981.943,57 + + 19 BM19 152.354,59 2.134.298,16 + + 21 BM21 145.022,22 2.279.320,38 + + +36 WP title + YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction +37 WP number + 6 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 243 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + +40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + YASMINE is a visual-semantic metascraper that combines semantic and mapping layers in order to extract knowledge from a specific + site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific processing. As such, + YASMINE is a significant addition to the RESILIENCE RI ecosystem, especially as far as Search & Find research-enhancing + services are concerned: in fact it incorporates the ability of scraping and enriching visual and audio data by using Computer Vision and + Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that is converted into metadata. YASMINE is designed + for two purposes that are unique to religious studies and are described below: the Sanctuaria case-study, and the Plorabunt case-studies, + dedicated to religious shrines network and to the prayerful killed in terrorist attacks since 1982 respectively. + + Scope and goal + There are fields of research in Religious Studies whose study can be undertaken because of the existence of contemporary sources outside + traditional archival venues, but is slowed down by the lack of tools to make them available. ITSERR can assist RESILIENCE in + overcoming this by developing a prototype whose software components, using artificial intelligence, can search for data and extract + knowledge from it, and then analyse, categorise and order information related to the research topic. + The main issue is posed by the fact that the web offers a plethora of data: structured or unstructured, stored in multiple formats (i.e. texts + from XML/HTML, PDF,... Images from png, jpg, webp, etc), implemented using different technologies (static documents, dynamic + documents from CMS, API, JavaScript, etc). This heterogeneity in the web sources makes it difficult for scientists to collect, clean, + analyse, structure and organise data in ways compliant with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). + YASMINE drastically reduces the pain of finding and scraping web sources and increases the power of the scientist in creating high + quality disciplinary corpora from web sources. This will be supported by a multi-encoding, multi-lingual, multi-format and pluri-semantic + architecture to adapt the solution to the needs of the researcher. + ITSERR intends to explore two technological paths offering scientists a technical choice in terms of learning capacity, scalability, + architectural flexibility and adaptability: + YASMINE is a prototype of an open source meta-scraper with a highly modular and scalable architecture to be easily confronted to + + + + 244 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + extract very specific knowledge for various scientific projects, disciplines, etc. It will be composed of three engines: + - a semantic (structure) analyser to easily read and interpret any web data sources and create a reusable semantic layer allowing to + interpret and extract automatically the data of the web source. The semantic layer can be enriched manually by the scientist for a fine- + tuned data structure discovery and will be recorded within a semantic layer database for continuous improvement of the capacity of + YASMINE to automatically and better discover and understand any web data source. + - a data mapper: will propose the scientists with automated solutions to interpret the data discovered within the semantic layer and map + them to output data objects. This is the data mapping layer; + - a meta-scraper: supported by its multi-format, encoding, etc. capacities, using the semantic and data mapping layers to extract + knowledge from a specific site and create a new data structure ready to be exported to multiple output formats for further scientific + processing. Semantic and data mapping layers would be part of a FAIR based repository to allow recurrent web data sources exploration + to keep the data up-to-date and share this interpretation data with the research community. + The developed metascraper, YASMINE, is then tested on two test cases, that are particularly relevant because they offer complex + research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and + read together, but which religious-historical research can no longer ignore. The two test cases, that already possess a starting database that + has been worked on, are Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, described below: + a) the case of Sanctuaria: this case study applies to the large number of shrines with religious significance and to the routes and network + that connect them. While projects addressing singular networks of sites and their connecting routes do exist, they are generally limited in + chronology and scope, and they do not integrate new knowledge extracted from the web, but limit themselves to systematising existing + knowledge. YASMINE, applied to this case study, has instead the goal of producing new knowledge about the shrines and their + connection by scraping the web for information. + b) the case of Plorabunt, a database of the prayerful killed in places of worship, worldwide, since 1982. The compilation of such a + database poses significant challenges: information ranges from the identification of the places, dates of the religious attacks, names of the + victims, names of the killers, to the storage of available digitised sources - i.e. from archives, libraries, international and local associations’ + web sites, journals, social network pages, etc. To this respect, the wealth of information available on the web, as a whole, is useless to the + researchers: the data is not ordered nor manageable in terms of scholarly investigation, and must therefore be used piecemeal. On the + contrary, appropriate web scraping and Artificial Intelligence tools for textual understanding can extract information efficiently, giving to + the researchers access to new sources, new databases and new frameworks for their activity. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A6.1: Analysis: in this activity, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts and Religious Studies researchers committed to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt test cases. + + A6.2.1: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Plorabunt: specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.2: Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria: specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as + datasets for YASMINE. + A6.2.3: Scientific preparation/IT: On the software development side, algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping + are experimented and researched for use and optimisation within YASMINE. + A6.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: For general scientific preparation and coordination, the material experimented in A6.2.2 + and collected in A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between + A6.2.1 and A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. + + A6.3: Development: maintenance of the RESILIENCE software components library; optimisation and development of algorithms and + software for automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data, for layout analysis, for semantic structure analysis and for + data mapping; the tools are combined into YASMINE + + A6.4:Test: testing of YASMINE (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security testing, researchers community + testing, etc.), with reference to the Sanctuaria and on the Plorabunt test cases, and improved depending on feedback. + + A6.5: Operations: Creation of a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, with the expertise developed during the test + phase, released in RESILIENCE. Running YASMINE on the use case Pilgrimage, and population of the relative database; running + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + + + 245 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + YASMINE on the use case Plorabunt, and population of the relative database. Publication of YASMINE on the RESILIENCE + marketplace. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + YASMINE, as a visual-semantic metascraper, is an unprecedented prototype that is capable of extracting specialised + information from the web, ordering it in semantic and mapping layers, and making it reusable as part of a FAIR + based repository. This allows recurrent web data sources exploration to keep the data up-to-date and share this + interpretation data with the research community. YASMINE is applied to the Sanctuaria and Plorabunt case-studies. + Both attempt to architect two reusable but specialised AIs to extract specific knowledge, to use Machine Learning + methods, tools and techniques, and to perform the inception of the AI learning by “feeding” the AI with the + semantic layers discovered by YASMINE. + ITSERR intends to compare the quality of data extraction that can be achieved by pushing both technological + approaches. + Some specificities of this WP are that both projects, Sanctuaria and Plorabunt, should : + ●Support for multiple web data sources technologies/formats (XML/HTML, API, JS, etc.) + ●Support of multiple languages + ●Support of multiple alphabet/encoding + ●Support of multiple ontologies/semantics + ●Support of multiple output formats + YASMINE strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to + the search&find tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + In itself, YASMINE produces a significant advancement as a domain-dedicated metascraper, and such advancement + is pushed by the specific requirements that are posed by the two case studies, both of great relevance for Religious + Studies. In fact, they offer complex research on heterogeneous sources available: written, photographic, audiovisual + sources, which are currently neglected or difficult to find and read together, but which religious-historical research + can no longer ignore. + For the Sanctuaria case, the extreme fragmentation on a regional basis of the various projects (either in progress or + concluded) highlights a potential of connections not yet investigated. Thanks to YASMINE, the case-study intends + to create a network that identifies transversal research paths: cults, architectures, sources, to be identified on the + national territory but also in its Global extensions. + With regards to the Plorabunt project, YASMINE organises and provides access to an enormous amount of data + and sources on attacks against the prayerful in places of worship. Because of the wide scope of Plorabunt and of the + difficulties in finding on the web reliable information, the use of an intelligent metascraper is pivotal for treating and + analysing such a vast data source without limiting the scope of the research. To this respect, YASMINE offers a + breakthrough technology model, which is innovative and versatile enough to find other applications even beyond + the domain of Religious Studies. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + + + + 246 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + D6.1.1 Whitepaper on YASMINE + This deliverable describes YASMINE, a metascraper that is capable of performing: + 1)Automatic metadata extraction on visual and audiovisual data + 2)Layout analysis to automatically extract texts and images + 3)Semantic mapping of web pages, adding a semantic layer that acts as a + destination language. + 4)Interpretation of the semantic layer and mapping of its elements to data objects. + The deliverable also describes the output of the scraping activity, in form of FAIR- + compliant metadata. + D6.1.2 Whitepaper on Sanctuaria datasets + BM10 10 This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Sanctuaria test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Sanctuaria test-case. + D6.1.3 Whitepaper on Plorabunt datasets + This whitepaper illustrates the results of YASMINE’s use for the Plorabunt test + case. In particular, it highlights the new knowledge produced by the metascraper, + and shows how it can be taken as a basis for further, novel research. The + document also describes the functionalities made available by the database created + for the Plorabunt + + BM13 13 - + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + D6.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The training material for YASMINE is the output of this deliverable. It is built + upon the experience obtained through testing (A6.4) and through the previous + stages of development (A6.1-A6.3), with the help of IT experts, testers and + BM19 19 scholars. Training material is also produced, for integration with the + RESILIENCE research infrastructure. Additionally, documentation and training + materials are provided for accessing the databases dedicated to the two use cases, + Sanctuaria and Plorabunt. + + BM21 21 D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + + + + 247 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D6.3 Data publishing (Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets) on RESILIENCE + The Sanctuaria and Plorabunt datasets are made available through RESILIENCE. + This aims at obtaining a double result: on the one hand, it provides researchers + with two powerful databases for pushing forward their research on two relevant + topics for Religious Studies; on the other hand, it displays the potentialities of + BM21 21 YASMINE and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other domains. + D6.4 Prepare YASMINE for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of YASMINE are + packaged as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + BM1 1 M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + + + + 248 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM2 2 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM3 3 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 249 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + BM4 4 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + + + + 250 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM5 5 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + + + + 251 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM6 6 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + + 252 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM7 7 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM8 8 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + + + + 253 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM9 9 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + + + + 254 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM10 10 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + + + + 255 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM13 13 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM15 15 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 256 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM17 17 General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + + + + 257 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + BM19 19 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + + + + 258 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + KPI 6.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + KPI 6.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + KPI 6.1: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of correctly extracted metadata; min.90% + KPI 6.2: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatic metadata extraction on visual and + BM21 21 audiovisual data (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then + M26; %age of incorrectly extracted metadata; max.10% + KPI 6.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of correctly extracted texts and images; min.90% + KPI 6.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for layout analysis to automatically extract texts + and images (described in D6.1.1), to be assessed within M12, then M18, then M26; + %age of incorrectly extracted texts and images; max.10% + For pre-release phase: + KPI 6.5: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; min. 75% + KPI 6.6: Feedback on YASMINE applied to Sanctuaria (as described in D6.1.2), + to be assessed within M28; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 + scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 6.7: usage assessment of D6.3 (the published Plorabunt and Sanctuaria + databases), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + KPI 6.8: usage assessment of D6.4 (the published YASMINE metascraper), to be + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + + + 259 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of downloads. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 50.134,56 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 100.269,12 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on YASMINE + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 167.994,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + + + + 260 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + First release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of YASMINE in TEST environment + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 172.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 172.354,58 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 261 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Second release of YASMINE in PRODUCTION environment + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Application of YASMINE to the two case-studies + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 152.354,59 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 145.022,22 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + 262 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study-Sanctuaria +49 Activity short name + 6.2.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Sanctuaria test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Sanctuaria test case to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE can be + developed and later tested. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 263 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.369,20 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 119.560,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT +49 Activity short name + 6.2.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + + + + 264 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity ensures that algorithms for semantic structure analysis and for data mapping are experimented and researched for use and + optimisation within YASMINE. It also experiments algorithms for knowledge extraction, and algorithms semantic structure analysis + and for data mapping. The task is performed jointly by domain-specific experts (i.e. related to Religious Studies) and by IT experts, to + assist the development activity (A6.3). +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 241.800,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.033,60 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 358.680,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination +49 Activity short name + 6.2.4 + + + + + 265 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + +52 Activity description + For general scientific preparation and coordination, this activity ensures that the material experimented in A6.2.2 and collected in + A6.2.1 is checked with the principles formulated in A6.1; additionally, coordination and assistance is provided between A6.2.1 and + A6.2.2 on one side, and A6.3 on the other. It also verifies the status and adequacy of the data sources identified in A6.1, and validates + the technical, scientific and user-related requirements emerged in that activity. For the subsequent phases, it also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,05 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + + + 266 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 6.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of YASMINE. The first stage has the aim + of gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the databases of interest for the Sanctuaria and the Plorabunt + test cases, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. To this end, scientific requirements and user-related requirements are laid out in this + activity. + From a technical point of view, requirements of the capabilities of YASMINE and of the data being processed are laid out by IT + experts, taking into account the scientific and user-related requirements. In particular, YASMINE must result in a metascraper capable + of combining a semantic and a mapping layer: the semantic layer is obtained through application of the semantic structure analysis model + with a specifically developed software that must be capable of being trained. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 267 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 6.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + +52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced by the WP is prepared for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. It + also sets up YASMINE and the databases for the two case-studies for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the databases and + its attached material (documentation, training packages etc.) are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process + is the Continuous Deployment. + + + + 268 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + is the Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that YASMINE goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and that the databases for Sanctuaria + and Plorabunt are published for RESILIENCE-RI.EU. + 2)It provides that YASMINE’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 291.422,75 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.399,59 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 6.4 + + + + 269 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test YASMINE. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, testing is actually part of an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are used to nurture researchers + thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, the test is + run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, providing high-profile feedback on the functionalities of YASMINE, for research on the two + case-studies. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, clear + understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1.It sets up a FAIR data repository for the semantic and mapping layers, improved with the experience developed during the test phase + itself. + 2.It runs YASMINE’s prototype on the two case-studies, and tests it with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting + feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for improving the documentation, and for producing training material. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 270 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 6.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It designs and develops Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligent algorithms to automatically extract additional information that can + be used to enrich the collected data. Examples of such algorithms are the automatic tagging of images and videos, the description in + natural language (i.e. automatic captioning) of their visual content, and the visual-textual search through the comparison by similarity of + visual/textual embeddings. Extracted metadata will be used as additional inputs for the YASMINE prototype. + 3)It develops layout analysis solutions based on Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence algorithms, to assist with the task of + knowledge extraction algorithms, and to be used as additional inputs for the other developed tools. + 4)It develops a tool capable of mapping web pages semantically, creating a semantic layer. This layer, in turn, serves as a medium for + putting in communication web pages in different languages and with different structures. + 5)It develops a data mapper, i.e. a tool capable of interpreting the semantic layer and mapping its elements to data objects into a new + mapping layer. + + + + 271 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + mapping layer. + 6)It develops the metascraper prototype, i.e. YASMINE itself, combining the semantic and mapping layers. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 460.023,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 32.201,61 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Case-study +49 Activity short name + 6.2.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 272 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + +52 Activity description + This activity ensures that specific data sources are picked for the Plorabunt test case, and prepared as datasets for YASMINE. It also + prepares the identified data sources for the Plorabunt test case, in order to produce a scientifically relevant sample on which YASMINE + can be developed and later tested +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 152.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 20.601,14 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + 273 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic +Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge Extraction] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 61.801,98 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 274 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 28.028,36 28.028,36 + + 2 BM2 56.056,72 84.085,08 + + 3 BM3 110.462,52 194.547,60 + + 4 BM4 114.823,10 309.370,70 + + 5 BM5 114.823,10 424.193,80 + + 6 BM6 114.823,10 539.016,90 + + 7 BM7 114.823,10 653.840,00 + + 8 BM8 114.823,10 768.663,10 + + 9 BM9 114.823,10 883.486,20 + + 10 BM10 114.823,12 998.309,32 + + 13 BM13 114.823,10 1.113.132,42 + + 15 BM15 114.823,10 1.227.955,52 + + 17 BM17 114.823,10 1.342.778,62 + + 19 BM19 114.823,10 1.457.601,72 + + 21 BM21 85.283,78 1.542.885,50 + + + 36 WP title + REVER - REVErse Regesta + 37 WP number + 7 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 275 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Matematica e + 6 CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + Informatica + + + 40 WP Leader + Alberto Melloni, Full Professor, OU2 UNIMORE-DESU + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + REVER is a software based on an algorithm capable of linking summaries created through domain-specific principles (the regesta) to the + documents that they summarise; it can also operate in the opposite direction, i.e. summarising a source into a regestum, by applying to + documents domain-specific principles acquired through machine learning. In this respect, it takes advantage of the RESILIENCE + research infrastructure ecosystem, but it also represents a significant addition to it (and beyond). In fact, REVER is different from + existing text summarisation algorithms, which subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. REVER, on the + contrary, makes it possible to produce summaries that add scientific value and depth to the summarised text. + + Scope and goal + Between the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, several scholars and erudites interested in the archival documents produced in the + Middle Ages tirelessly produced a large quantity of regesta (i.e. scholarly summaries of the contents of archival documents of diverse + natures). Paradoxically, the use of this scholarly literature, which bears extraordinary and unrepeatable scientific value, has fallen into + disuse without becoming obsolete: the fact that twenty-first-century scholars have become more and more accustomed to find online + significant segments of the information they look for has contributed to putting into jeopardy the immense treasure of regesta. Expert- + augmented machine learning will allow for the reconnection of the original sources to the regesta and will rescue two ‘old’ treasures (both + archival documents and the regesta themselves), thus making readily available to the scientific community the semantic density, complexity + and stratification of the regesta and pave the way to innovations. + Ecclesiastical sources are the typology of documents on which this intellectual exercise has been carried out most decisively and precisely. + For this reason, the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (an already existing collection of ecclesiastical documents from the origins of the + Latin Church to the twelfth century), represents an ideal sample dataset for applying expert-augmented machine learning to reconnect the + sources and their summaries (i.e. the regesta). + This activity requires a unique type of text summarisation algorithms that must be able to operate with different languages and with + domain-specific categories. The aim is therefore not to merely apply Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm to a specific set of + texts (i.e. the regesta and the documents that they summarise): rather, the aim is to produce a new algorithm that is able to apply + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + + + + 276 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + principles of a specific discipline (i.e. Palaeography and Diplomatics) to a specific type of domain-related documents (i.e. documents + pertaining to Religious Studies). Given that the regesta and the documents they summarise might not be already been digitised in textual + format, this activity will also take care of developing Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) tools, for translating handwritten texts into + digital text, and OCR tools for converting printed texts in a digital version. + The existing text summarisation software, based either on text extraction algorithms, or on text abstraction algorithms, or a combination + or both (such as LSA-Text-Summarisation, NAMAS, or TextRank), are meant to work in one direction only (from the full text to + the summary) and thus with a top-down approach; thanks to the coherence provided by the domain-related documents and to the + possibility of hyperlinking already existing summaries (i.e. the regesta) to the full documents, new algorithms can be developed and trained + to work in both directions, thanks to a positive feedback mechanism. In other words, it becomes capable of summarising documents in + regesta-type entries, but also of linking existing (or newly created) summaries to their sources. + The fact that regesta can be (and often are) written in a language that is different from the one of the documents they refer to adds a layer + of complexity: a form of reverse engineering based on algorithms capable of operating in different (or even encrypted) languages, like + ReFormat, is therefore required. + In addition to developing and optimising the algorithm(s), the WP develops a visualisation software for presenting the connections between + regesta and full documents, automatically hyperlinking the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their source. The software can + be operated offline or online and, for the scope of this WP, it is designed to display the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. + + Activities envisaged in the WP + A7.1 Analysis: Recognition of the use-case corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the documents they refer to) for algorithm + processing (i.e. pre-processing), production of scientific and technical requirements + + A7.2.1: Scientific preparation/IT: IT supervision and creation of guidelines for pre-processing corpora for REVER. + A7.2.2: Scientific preparation/Corpus building: supervision and corpus building on the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum for REVER. + A7.2.3: Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing: Application of guidelines for pre-processing the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + to be processed by REVER. + A7.2.4: Scientific preparation/Coordination: coordination between IT and scientific research, and validation of the other activities in the + WP. + + A7.3: Development: development of text ranking and text summarisation algorithms for REVER, development of user interface, OCR + optimisation (where required). + + A7.4: Test: testing lifecycle on the desktop and server software (incl. algorithmic and software performances, functional testing, security + testing, researchers community testing, etc.). + + A7.5: Operations: REVER desktop and server solutions go into production. Running REVER on the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum, release of the database created through REVER in RESILIENCE, and publication of REVER for the research + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, ETC + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + This WP develops an algorithm that serves as matcher from a summarised text to its original source and vice versa, + even when the summary and the full text are in different languages; the WP also develops an attached software for + the search and visualisation of results and takes care of digitising handwritten or printed documents. All prototypes + are able to work online and offline, with an accessible User Interface. Through expert-augmented machine learning, + the prototype will automatically hyperlink the paratextual elements of the summarised text to their transcribed full- + text source, matching the keywords and the most relevant elements in the summary to the extended version of the + source. This project allows: + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + + + + 277 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.to make available printed databases of the nineteenth century and at the same time ancient documents, thus + allowing a wider and deeper access to fundamental sources; + 2.to make available the knowledge developed in the nineteenth century, thus preserving a repository of knowledge + that is foundational for the development of more refined research; + 3.and finally to develop in a new and innovative way the processes of machine learning/AI. + REVER strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation and enrichment tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation + Automatic text summarisation with machine learning is an already existing technology. However, generic text + summarisation is by definition non-specific, and does not add value to the summarised text: indeed, any summary is + specifically carried out to subtract, or at the very least extract, value from the original text. On the other hand, the + proposed algorithm, with its capability of working both ways and of applying semantic and domain-specific + principles, does produce added value: for the full text, it produces a regestum, that is not just a summary, but a + domain-specific summary, with completely different criteria from generic text summarisation. On the other hand, + for the single regestum it provides a hyperlink to the full document to the domain-specific summary. + Starting from abstractive summarisation principles, this technology will be integrated with palaeographic and + diplomatic methodology to fuel – with a scientific and highly specialised knowledge – a machine learning process + capable of incrementing knowledge. + As a software prototype, REVER is also capable of being integrated in the wider RESILIENCE Research + Infrastructure, enlarging its field of application and its accessibility to the scholarly community at an european and + international level. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D7.1.1 Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + This whitepaper contains guidelines for corpus pre-processing is meant to provide + clear and usable instructions for researchers who wish to have their corpus + processed by REVER. The guidelines are developed according to the experience + BM5 5 developed with the case-study corpus (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum), but + they are written to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not + corpus-specific, but rather software-specific, and can be updated throughout the + work of the WP. + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 - + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + BM13 13 This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + + + + 278 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D7.1.2 Whitepaper on algorithms + This deliverable consists of a whitepaper describing three algorithms/software: + 1)Tools for handwritten text recognition of historical manuscripts and OCR on + digitised documents, according to the principles set by D7.1.1. + 2)an algorithm that is able to link the regesta to the documents they refer to, in an + automated way. The algorithm is tailored to the study-case, but is Open Source – + like all the other WP deliverables – and is passible for further improvement, + adaptation and optimisation. + BM13 13 3)An algorithm that performs the opposite work of the previous one. It is capable + of producing a regestum-like summary of a source text, by extracting information + in a domain-related way. It differs from text summarisation and non-specific text + extraction, since it produces a type of summary that is specifically tailored for the + study-case domain. It therefore ranks information automatically according to the + uses and needs of the scholarly community, and can be trained through machine + learning for optimising results. It is Open Source and is potentially adaptable to + other domains, beyond that of Religious Studies for which it was designed. + + D7.1.3 Whitepaper on REVER + This deliverable is a whitepaper describing REVER, i.e. the implementations of the + algorithms described in D7.1.2 with a user interface that allows browsing and + BM15 15 visualising the analysed corpus, linking existing regesta with their sources and + producing new regesta from existing sources. The deliverable is tested as a part of + activity A7.4, and the test results are used for further improvement and for + producing D7.2. + + BM17 17 - + + D7.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The training material indispensable for using REVER is the output of this + BM19 19 deliverable. It is built upon the experience obtained through testing (T.7) and + through the previous stages of development (T.1-T.6), with the help of IT experts, + testers and scholars. + + D7.3 Data publishing of new metadata on Regesta Pontificum Romanorum onto + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D7.1.3 and the documentation + written for D7.2, along with data prepared according to D.7.1.1, are combined in + the release of a browsable online version of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, + through RESILIENCE. This produces a double output: on the one hand, it + provides researchers with a powerful prototype for accessing an important corpus + BM21 21 of documents (the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum); on the other hand, it displays + the potentialities of REVER and acts as a technology demonstrator also for other + domains. + D7.4 Prepare REVER for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of REVER are packaged as + Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + BM1 1 and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + + + + 279 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM2 2 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + + + + 280 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM3 3 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 281 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + BM4 4 M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + + + + 282 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM5 5 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM6 6 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + + + + 283 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + BM7 7 ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + + + + 284 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM8 8 For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + + + + 285 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + BM9 9 in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + + + + 286 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM10 10 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM13 13 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + + + + 287 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + + + + 288 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM17 17 ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + + + + 289 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM19 19 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + + + 290 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following:: + General: + ●KPI 7.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 7.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 7.1: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of correct recognition; min. 95% + ●KPI 7.2: Efficacy of HTR/OCR tool (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within + M14; %age of wrong recognition; max. 5% + ●KPI 7.3: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of correct links from regesta to the + BM21 21 source; min.90% + ●KPI 7.4: Efficacy of the algorithm for linking regesta to their sources (described + in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M18; %age of missing links from regesta to the + source; max. 20% + ●KPI 7.5: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of correct + summarisation of sources into meaningful regesta; min. 80% + ●KPI 7.6: Efficacy of the algorithm for automatically producing regesta from + sources (described in D7.1.2), to be assessed within M24; %age of incorrect + summarisation of sources, production of meaningless or incorrect regesta; max. + 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 7.7: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of positive feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 7.8: Feedback on REVER (user interface + algorithms, described in D7.1.3), + to be assessed within M14, then m 22, then M28; %age of negative feedback from + a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 7.9: usage assessment of D7.3 (the online version of the Regesta Pontificum + Romanorum), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 28.028,36 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + 291 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 56.056,72 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on corpus pre-processing + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 110.462,52 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in TEST environment; Approval of second release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 292 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of sources>regesta algorithm + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Prototype of regesta>sources algorithm + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.823,12 + + IO Desciption + First release of the SW in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of the SW in TEST environment; + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 293 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.823,10 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.283,78 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 294 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Coordination + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity provides scientific, domain-specific supervision and coordination for the other WP activities. In particular, it ensures that + domain-specific and case-study-specific expertise is accessed to guarantee the high scientific profile of the WP. It also ensures that the IT + development tasks are carried out in accordance with the scientific requirements. To this end, involvement of scholars accustomed to the + regesta and IT personnel is necessary. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 120.900,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 295 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.463,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 7.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed. + 2)It develops custom tools for handwritten recognition, and assessment/re-training of available OCR tools for document pre-processing + and digitalization + 3)It develops and optimises an algorithm for automatically linking domain-specific summaries with a standardised structure (the regesta) + to the document they summarise. To do this, it builds on page-segmentation software (such as CVAT) with the use of neural networks, + that are optimised and trained to link each regestum entry to the document in the corpus it refers to. + 4)It develops text ranking and text summarisation algorithms to make them capable of being trained through machine learning and of + producing regesta-like entries from full sources. To perform this task, existing text summarisation software must be significantly improved. + In this activity, text-summarisation and text-ranking algorithms are combined and provided with machine-learning capacities. + 5)It combines the regesta>source and the source>regesta algorithms with a user interface that allows to visualise and browse the + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + + + + 296 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documents of the corpus and the related regesta, significantly enhancing the research experience. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 511.587,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 35.811,13 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 7.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + + + + 297 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks that are necessary for deploying and running the WP operations. In particular: + 1)It carries out and evaluates machine learning for the algorithms developed in activity 7.3 + 2)It sets up the REVER prototype and deploys it, ensuring that it is tested by a sample of the scholarly community to collect feedback for + further improvement throughout the final release. Basic training in the use of the prototype is provided by the staff who worked at its + development, with extensive support and Q&A sessions between developers and users. The collected feedback is not only used for + ameliorating REVER, but also for designing its manual and documentation. + 3)It produces technical and user documentation: to this end, guidelines for pre-processing of the corpus and instructions for using + REVER are combined in order to produce a clear, exhaustive and easily browsable documentation, ideally in the form of a wiki. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 97.807,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.846,53 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 298 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 7.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity collects the deliverables created in the other WP activities and ensures that they are properly functioning, and + prepares them for integration in the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + In particular: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for REVER’s use case (i.e. its application to the + Regesta Pontificum Romanorum). + 2)It provides that REVER goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted service and the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum + is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that REVER's source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to software marketplaces + such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 75.975,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 299 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.318,25 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 7.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is focused on analysis of the material relating to REVER, both in terms of data and in terms of developed software. It is + deployed in three main tasks: + 1)It analyses the case-study corpus, represented by the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, laying out the technical, scientific and user-related + requirements for REVER to operate on that corpus. + 2)Building from the experience developed throughout the collection and the preparation of the corpus for the case-study, it lays out + principles for general guidelines for corpus pre-processing. + 3)The software optimised in the other WP activities is analysed and evaluated in order to ensure the achievement of the necessary KPIs. + Building from feedback obtained through testing and domain-specific analyses (for IT, for Religious Studies, and for the corpus of the + case-study) it also updates technical, scientific and user-related requirements for REVER. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 300 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 85.905,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.013,34 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/IT + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + + + + 301 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides guidelines for pre- + processing material to by analysed through REVER, based on the output of activity 7.1 These guidelines, although developed from a + specific case, are designed to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,09 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs of PhD scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus building + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + 302 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the collection of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full-text documents they refer to. To perform this + activity it is necessary to secure access to institutions responsible for the preservation and the edition of data and sources (such as + Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, MGH, Ecole Française de Rome, Archivio Apostolico Vaticano). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 161.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,98 € + + + + + 303 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation/Corpus pre-processing + 49 Activity short name + 7.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 6 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the corpus preparation and pre-processing for digital analysis of the Regesta Pontificum Romanorum and the full- + text documents they refer to. It applies the guidelines for pre-processing as defined in A7.1 and A7.2.1 to the corpus prepared in + A7.2.2. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 71.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 304 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.137,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 305 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 30.032,14 30.032,14 + + 2 BM2 60.064,27 90.096,41 + + 3 BM3 108.791,69 198.888,10 + + 4 BM4 114.282,80 313.170,90 + + 5 BM5 114.282,80 427.453,70 + + 6 BM6 114.282,80 541.736,50 + + 7 BM7 114.282,80 656.019,30 + + 8 BM8 114.282,80 770.302,10 + + 9 BM9 114.282,80 884.584,90 + + 10 BM10 114.282,77 998.867,67 + + 13 BM13 114.282,80 1.113.150,47 + + 15 BM15 114.282,80 1.227.433,27 + + 17 BM17 114.282,80 1.341.716,07 + + 19 BM19 114.282,80 1.455.998,87 + + 21 BM21 85.490,22 1.541.489,09 + + + 36 WP title + uBIQUity + 37 WP number + 8 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 306 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + Dipartimento di Ingegneria "Enzo CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 3 Ferrari" Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 9 Dipartimento di Architettura CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + In accordance with RESILIENCE’s objectives, uBIQUity intends to develop, and provide the scientific community of religious sciences + with, a new research instrument concerning textual traditions and exegetical approaches to the Bible and the Qur’ān as offered by ancient + commentaries composed in the Christian and Islamic worlds respectively. These commentaries contain an immense patrimony of religious + scholarship and are unique sources for the study of the knowledge and readings of these two sacred texts through the centuries. Intertextual + references, whether made consciously or unconsciously by ancient commentators, work as invisible “places of memory”, hence making the + sacred texts “ubiquitous”; in addition, references to existing, real-world “places of religious memory” add a further layer of significance to + uBIQUity. Connecting authors of these exegetical works through their shared places of memory will help us reconstruct the “collective + memories” of religious communities across cultural environments and/or historical periods. Connecting exegetical works to real-world (and + sometimes shared) places allows to open a new avenue for looking at religious commentaries, further empowering the RESILIENCE + research-enhancing services. + + Scope and goal + Building upon the wealth of pre-existing resources, uBIQUity will produce a more performant software prototype for a machine-learning + search engine. It will be specifically projected to identify with a higher degree of accuracy both explicit and non-explicit quotations and + allusions to the Bible and to the Qur’ān through two huge corpora: Christian and Islamic commentaries. Expanding beyond the textual + level, it also includes the capability of linking places referred to in the texts to existing (or once-existing) places, enhancing the + understanding of the religious context. This new research prototype might develop further applications in the research of intertextual + references in different kinds of literary production. + As source material, uBIQUity includes all edited commentaries on the Bible composed from the Patristic age until the Late Byzantine + period, both in Greek and Latin; all edited classical commentaries on the Qur’ān composed in Arabic from the rise of Islam until the + 15th century. + Regarding the current state of the art, the following can be noted: + - Commentaries on the Bible: today, the only tool available to find Biblical references in patristic works is BiblIndex + (https://www.biblindex.org/en). Limits of BiblIndex: 1) it does not directly search through the texts but only relies on Biblical passages + identified as such by the editors of each work; 2) the corpus of authors is characterised by remarkable lacunae (e.g., Augustine of Hippo); + intentionally, Byzantine and middle-Latin Biblical commentaries are excluded. Differently, it is possible to search for Biblical references + through the corpora of Greek and Latin works digitised and uploaded on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Thesaurus + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + + + 307 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Linguae Latinae (TLL). Limits of TLG and TLL: 1) they do not contain only Biblical commentaries / some commentaries have not + been uploaded; 2) they are not specifically devised to explore the use of Biblical quotations/allusions both in a quantitative and + qualitative perspective. + - Commentaries on the Qur’ān: the only tools that allow to find Qur’ānic quotations in the Islamic classical commentaries (tafsīr) are: al- + Mawsūa al- Shāmila (https://shamela.ws/category/3 and https://old.shamela.ws/index.php/category/127); Great Tafsirs + (https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_Library.aspx?Menu=1&LanguageID=1); Altafsir + (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID= + 1); Ğāmi al-Tafāsīr 3 (https://abrenoor.ir/ar/app/abrenoor_jamitafasir3). However, they do not contain all the tafsīr literature + already edited and do not have important functions such as the possibility of cross-references among commentaries, n-grams, statistics, + morphological and semantic analysis of words. + + uBIQUity will combine and implement (with approx. 20% of increased efficacy) the already existing resources by means of licence + agreements and collaboration with potential partners (e.g., TLG, TLL, Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum) and the adoption of + detecting plagiarism softwares (e.g., iThenticate) as well as corpus query tools (e.g., AntConc, Wordsmith). In addition, it opens a new + road for context understanding by linking textual and spatial elements with religious significance. Technicians will integrate the pre- + existing models with the most advanced methods of semantic word-embedding (e.g., word3vec) according to uBIQUity’s outcomes. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A8.1: Analysis and Prototyping: Preliminary scientific and technical work: analysis and mapping of the corpora, analysis of technical + requirements and scientific needs. + + A8.2.1: Scientific Preparation/IT: verification of the technical and scientific requirements, software experimenting, acquisition of software + licences. + A8.2.2: Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran: corpus acquisition and interaction with TLG, TLL; corpus acquisition and + interaction with Great Tafsirs and Corpus Coranicum partners. + A8.2.3: Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation: linking of places and spaces described in Qu’ranic and Biblical texts and + commentaries to existing (or once-existing) places. + + A8.3: Development: Development of a software specifically aimed at recognizing and detecting Biblical and Qur’ānic quotations and + allusions in the corpora. + + A8.4: Test: deployment and testing of two websites (Biblical and Qur’ānic commentaries) hosted by a shared platform, which will + interoperate with the same software projected to work with three different alphabets and languages (Greek, Latin, and Arabic). + + A8.5: Operations: uBIQUity goes in production. Running uBIQUity on the two corpora, release of the service in RESILIENCE- + RI.EU platform, and publication of uBIQUity for marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The WP makes available a full set of digitised commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān written in the established + chronological frame. Texts will undergo a formal revision by specialists of Greek, Latin and Arabic. Where + necessary, texts will be lemmatized and morphologically tagged. The commentaries will be indexed according to the + author’s name / work titles / century. This work will contribute to building two databases that will be made + accessible to the scientific community. Users will be able to query the databases through different access keys. Each + commentary will be accompanied by an updated bibliography. Thanks to the results of this WP, researchers will be + able to quickly and accurately identify quotations/allusions in ancient commentaries on the sacred texts of + Christianity and Islam. Furthemore, more functions will be made available in uBIQUity, such as n-grams, statistics, + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + + + + 308 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + morphological analysis, and vocabulary tools. Among the most interesting services, users will be able to group into + (also visual) subsets quotations/allusions found in commentaries according to their possible variant readings. + uBIQUity strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + search&find and collaboration tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + Motivation: + There are no databases specifically dedicated to ancient commentaries on the Bible and the Qur’ān. Some + commentaries have never been digitised and this first step will make an outstanding literary and exegetical heritage + available for researchers’ needs. The set of annexed instruments requires a Religious Studies expertise to be properly + laid out, and the Religious Studies scholarly community remains its primary target: the set of instruments, however, + will be auxiliary to other involved research fields, such as philology, textual criticism, history, and others. + With regards to the primary target domain, namely Religious Studies, the use of a more adequate and advanced + toolkit for concordances and text analysis is capable of allowing the achievement of significantly better results + compared to now. Semantic computational analysis will produce new research acquisitions. Reconstructing with the + highest degree of accuracy the way a text or an author dialogues with other texts or authors (through direct or + indirect, implicit, quotations, allusions, imitations or re-writings) means to clearly visualise and, hence, to be able to + explore more efficiently the continuous and unavoidable dialectic between past and present, tradition and + innovation, which lies at the very basis of hermeneutics. The proposed digital prototype aims at creating a shared + research instrument that will fill the gap resulting from the lack of a standard scientific approach. Besides, identifying + the range of quotations/allusions present in a certain author’s work will help visually reconstruct their Biblical or + Qur’ānic library, i.e., the number and kind of their readings. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D8.1.1 Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + This whitepaper describes the functions of the algorithms producing concordances + list, indicating possible allusions, and carrying out citation network analysis on the + BM6 6 corpora under scrutiny. The whitepaper also details how to prepare a corpus for + processing, even in different languages and alphabets, drawing from experience + obtained by working with the Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries. + + BM7 7 - + + D8.1.2 Whitepaper on uBIQUity + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of uBIQUity, intended as a + software that runs the algorithms and the functions described in D8.1.1 on two + BM8 8 twin websites (for Bible and Qur’an) hosted by a shared platform. This deliverable + details the type of operations that can be performed on the corpora, and collects + the results of preliminary testing, serving as a basis for the training material and the + documentation to be provided for uBIQUity. + + BM9 9 - + + + + + 309 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D8.1.3 Whitepaper on the results using UBIQUITY on Bible and Qur'anic + commentaries + This whitepaper illustrates the scientific advancement that can be achieved thanks + to uBIQUity, drawing from the experience of testers from the scholarly + BM15 15 community. It not only describes uBIQUity’s performances in theory (as with + D8.1.2), but it also presents the results of its operation “on the field”, thus acting + not only as a prototype or a scientific demonstrator, but as a potential instrument + for producing new knowledge and opening new roads for research. + + BM17 17 - + + D8.2 Training material, manual and documentation for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM19 19 uBIQUity is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of a + training package to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. The + package includes use-case samples (drawn from D8.1.3), as well as templates. + + D8.3 Publishing of new Bible and Qur'anic commentaries metadata on + RESILIENCE + The software produced, tested and described in D8.1.2 and the documentation + written for D8.2, along with data prepared according to D.8.1.1 guidelines, are + combined in the release of two websites (for Bible and Qu’ran, each with their + relative commentaries), hosted by a shared platform through RESILIENCE and + powered by uBIQUity. On the one hand, this presents to the scholarly community + BM21 21 a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions and exploring the + connections between religious texts and their commentaries; on the other hand, + this displays the potentialities of uBIQUity, setting a new standard for tools + dedicated to Religious Studies and, potentially, also for other domains. + D8.4 Prepare uBIQUity for publication to RESILIENCE marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of uBIQUity are packaged + as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + + + + 310 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + BM2 2 ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + + + + 311 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + BM3 3 ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + + + + 312 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + BM4 4 For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + + + + 313 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM5 5 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + + + + 314 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + BM6 6 D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 315 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM7 7 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + 316 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + BM8 8 described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM9 9 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + + + + 317 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM10 10 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 318 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + + + + 319 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM15 15 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + + + + 320 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM17 17 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + + + + 321 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + BM19 19 ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + + + + 322 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + General: + ●KPI 1.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days. + ●KPI 1.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month. + For development phase: + ●KPI 8.1: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of correct quotations found; min. 90% + BM21 21 ●KPI 8.2: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as described in + D8.1.2); to be assessed within M18; %age of wrong quotations found; max. 5% + ●KPI 8.3: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of correct quotation + networks found; min. 85% + ●KPI 8.4: Efficiency of the algorithm for finding Biblical and Qu’ranic quotations + networks in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M20; %age of wrong quotation + networks found; max. 10% + ●KPI 8.5: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of correct allusions + proposed; min. 75% + ●KPI 8.6: Efficiency of the algorithm for suggesting Biblical and Qu’ranic + allusions in the respective corpora of commentaries (used in uBIQUity as + described in D8.1.2); to be assessed within M22; %age of wrong allusions + proposed; max. 20% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + + + + 323 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 8.7: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75%. + ●KPI 8.8: Feedback on uBIQUity deployed (based on the analysis conducted for + D8.1.3), to be assessed within M16, then m 22, then M30; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 10%. + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 8.9: usage assessment of D8.3 (the online version of Biblic and Qu’ranic texts + and commentaries, powered by uBIQUity), to be assessed within 3 years after the + end of the project; # of users accessing the online database + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 30.032,14 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 60.064,27 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of the Whitepaper on algorithms and corpus preparation + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 108.791,69 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 324 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered; Approval of second release of uBIQUity Technical Analysis artefacts + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 114.282,77 + + IO Desciption + First release of uBIQUity in PRODUCTION environment; Second release of uBIQUity in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + + + + 325 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 114.282,80 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 85.490,22 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + + + + 326 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Analysis and prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 8.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the preliminary scientific and technical work for the development of uBIQUity. The first stage has the aim of + gaining an empathic understanding of the WP research topic by using the Design Thinking process. This involves consulting researchers + and experts internal and/or external to ITSERR to find out more about the process of connecting Biblical and Qu’ranic texts with their + commentaries, through engaging with researchers to understand their needs, experiences and motivations so as to gain a deeper personal + understanding of the research issues involved. This activity carries out three main tasks: + 1)The relevant texts (published and/or unpublished) are identified. + 2)Technical requirements and scientific needs are discussed with digital humanists and informatic engineers, and merged with user needs + coming from domain-specific experts and users. As a result, technical, scientific and user-related requirements are prepared, and the most + adequate software tools for implementing uBIQUity are identified, such as algorithms for citation recognition and algorithms for finding + allusions, e.g. those developed to detect plagiarism in modern scientific literature (e.g., iThenticate) . + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + + + + 327 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 3)General principles for corpus preparation and pre-processing are laid out. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 142.830,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.998,10 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + + + + 328 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to IT expertise necessary for the WP. It also provides IT supervision and coordination for + the other WP activities. In particular, for WP 8 it prepares guidelines for corpus pre-processing, based on the output of activity A8.1. + These guidelines, although developed from a specific case, are designed in order to be applicable to other corpora as well: they are therefore + not corpus-specific, but rather software-specific. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 82.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.222,07 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 17.883,04 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + + + + 329 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 8.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + This activity has the goal of finalising all the work validated by the analysis and prototyping phase and by the scientific preparation + phase, through the following tasks: + 1)Architecture/Design: this activity has the goal of bringing different perspectives together in one team to improve problem solving and + lead to smarter, more sustainable decision making and re-usable/cost-effective architectural/design components. As such, this is a cross- + functional activity, that links together this and other WPs and the RESILIENCE technical team, in order to optimise the use of time, + money, and effort to improve researchers’ satisfaction while helping to meet RESILIENCE RI goals. In particular, the + Architecture/Design task ensures that: + a)A RESILIENCE architecture and design common components repository is maintained + b)A performant, secure, robust and stable architecture and design for the ITSERR software requirements is created. + c)Respect of the architectural and design recommendations is guaranteed + 2)It optimises an algorithm for citation recognition within the case-study corpora, and upgrades it with citation network analysis + capabilities: to this end software tools for visualising and analysing citation networks of scientific publications (e.g., CitNetExplorer) are + integrated in the uBIQUity-specific citation recognition algorithm + 3)It optimises an algorithm for producing a list of possible allusions within the case-study corpora, with a selectable degree of similarity. + To this purpose, it experiments already existing algorithms as identified in A8.1 and validated in A8.2 + 4)It prepares the platform and user interface for deployment on a shared platform that hosts the Bible-dedicated and the Qur’an-dedicated + databases + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 416.900,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + + + + 330 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 29.183,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 8.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity makes use of best of breed tools and techniques to rigorously test uBIQUity. Although this may look as an almost final + stage, we should not forget that it is an iterative process. The results thus generated during the testing phase are often used to nurture + researchers thinking to refine/broaden problems, complete their problem understanding, improve the conditions of use, etc. Additionally, + the test is run with the aid of domain-specific scholars, that provide high-profile feedback on the functionalities of uBIQUity for research + on religious texts. Even during this stage, therefore, updates are made in order to rule out problems and derive an as deep as possible, + clear understanding of the ITSERR services/products offered to the researchers. + More specifically this activity covers the following tasks: + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + + + 331 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + 1)It sets up the uBIQUity prototype, as developed and prepared in A8.3, in order to make it available for testing. + 2)It tests the prototype with IT personnel and with the scientific community, collecting feedback necessary for improving the prototype, for + ameliorating the documentation, and for producing training material + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 123.165,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.621,55 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operations + 49 Activity short name + 8.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 332 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 3 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the software produced in the WP is put in production, and prepares it for integration in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure. It also sets up uBIQUity and its related material for Continuous Delivery, ensuring that the code, the + uBIQUity platform and its attached material are always in a release-ready state. The ultimate culmination of this process is the + Continuous Deployment. + In particular, the operation activity carries out the following tasks: + 1)It provides that technical documents and whitepapers are produced and published for uBIQUity. + 2)It provides that uBIQUity goes into production as a RESILIENCE-RI.EU hosted services and that the uBIQUity-powered + platform for Bible and Qur’anic texts and commentaries is published as an online and browsable tool. + 3)It provides that uBIQUity’s source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 91.725,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 6.420,75 € + + + + + 333 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Bible and Qu’ran + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to domain-specific requirements and expertise necessary for the WP. In particular, it + validates the status and adequacy of the texts identified in A8.1 and it applies corpus pre-processing guidelines to the use-case corpora, + composed of Bible and Qu’ranic texts and their commentaries, thus preparing the texts for software analysis. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 242.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 334 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 16.275,00 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs not included in item (a); Consumables, + participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Scientific Preparation/Architectural localisation + 49 Activity short name + 8.2.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 9 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity encompasses all the tasks related to identifying spaces and places in Bible and Qu’ranic texts and commentaries, and to + linking them to existing (or once-existing) spaces and places. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 106.250,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + + + + 335 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [8 - uBIQUity] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 12.463,64 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 61.801,94 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 336 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 27.301,64 27.301,64 + + 2 BM2 54.603,28 81.904,92 + + 3 BM3 80.419,44 162.324,36 + + 4 BM4 83.395,04 245.719,40 + + 5 BM5 83.395,04 329.114,44 + + 6 BM6 83.395,04 412.509,48 + + 7 BM7 83.395,04 495.904,52 + + 8 BM8 83.395,04 579.299,56 + + 9 BM9 83.395,04 662.694,60 + + 10 BM10 83.395,07 746.089,67 + + 13 BM13 83.395,04 829.484,71 + + 15 BM15 83.395,04 912.879,75 + + 17 BM17 83.395,04 996.274,79 + + 19 BM19 83.395,04 1.079.669,83 + + 21 BM21 66.166,42 1.145.836,25 + + + 36 WP title + TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies + 37 WP number + 9 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 337 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + 10 Dipartimento di Studi Storici CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Torino + + + 40 WP Leader + Stefano De Martino, Full Professor, OU10 UNITO-DSS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + The work package has the aim of developing a software toolkit for 3d visualisation and fruition of historical heritage artefacts and + materials; the toolkit is intended for specialised researchers in the field of Religious Studies and Archaeology, but is also transversally + applicable to other domains. The toolkit contains two such instruments: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: tablets from the Near East. + - ACIS - Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. + + Scope and goal + The tool prototypes developed in the WP share some features, such as the capability of producing 3d visualisations, but they vary in scope + and application. More in particular: + - EnLil – Enhancement of Little curved object representation: cuneiform tablets from the Near East. + This prototype is dedicated to the collection and representation of the about two millions of cuneiform tablets and bullae documenting + history and religion(s) of the Near East. They are written in cuneiform writing but in different languages, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, + Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite, Hattic, Luwian, and Ugaritic. A significant part of them features religion-specific content, but their + accessibility remains an issue for contemporary scholars. In fact, the tablets are dispersed in several museums in the world, and can often + be accessed only through hand copies and photographs. Hand copies, however, are a subjective work and can contain mistakes. + Photographs, on the other hand, can represent only with great difficulty the curved surface of the tablet. Thus, neither of these traditional + methods can be considered satisfyingly accurate. Even physical access to the document is often not a viable option, because of their fragility + and/or because of unstable political situations in the places where they are stored and preserved. EnLil aims at making cuneiform tablets + accessible in a 3D virtual representation. We aim at testing all the available instrumentation on the collection of tablets in Torino (Musei + Reali) in order ro check the most reliable and low cost equipment. Some of the 3D photo instruments are very expensive and Middle + Eastern Museums cannot support these costs. After the survey of the available instrumentation we will be able to share with the producers + the needs required by the best high resolution 3DScan for the virtual representation of any possible object with a curved surface. A test + will be made on a collection of tablets (either in Turkey or in Iraq) with a virtual reconstruction of the building where the tablesìts had + been kept (MiRAr project). In addition, we will train members of the staff of some Turkish and/or Iraqi museums. Among the other + projects of representation of the cuneiform tablets, the most advanced is the project led by the Universities of Wuerzburg, Mainz and + Dortmund whose focus is analysing the characters of cuneiform writing and putting together the pieces of fragmented documents, while we + propose to reconstruct a virtual ancient library with its content. A collaboration with the aforementioned project is on our agenda. + - ACIS – Artworks Conservation Integrated Sources. This prototype aims to merge the domains of archival digitization and informative + modelling by using artificial intelligence (AI) applications to serve as a shared information collection layer for EnLil and MiRAr. + The general objective of ACIS is therefore the systematisation and optimization of documentary knowledge, making archival, + bibliographic and iconographic sources interoperable and accessible through the extraction of innovative information from multimedia + digital archives based on deep learning techniques. In principle, ACIS also makes possible a layered 3d visualisation of the artefacts + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + + + 338 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + documented in the archives and databases under scrutiny. This allows us to better appreciate the aspects of “conservation history” + pertaining to each object. Modification and restoration vicissitudes, collection and exhibition history, visual and literary sources are + reconstructed and analysed comprehensively, as evidence of the "life" of artworks in relation to more general instances of change, including + mentality, taste, culture, materials, meaning and ideology, and social structure. The project also integrates the "future life" of works of art, + integrating knowledge of techniques, restoration practices and preventive maintenance protocols. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A9.1: Analysis and prototyping: recognition and experimenting of 3d acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS); + analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts); layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre- + processing of source archives (where needed); layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and + made available to ACIS and then to EnLil (for tablets and sites). + + A9.2: Scientific Preparation: acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; mapping of the history of conservation for works + of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of preservation, collector and museum history (for + ACIS); validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in the following activity (A9.3). + + A9.3: Development: development of software specified in A9.1, with a prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, + sites, artefacts); development of a repository as required by A9.1; enhancement and optimisation of 3d visualisation software for each of + the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + + A9.4: Test: the acquisition system is tested; the automatic metadatation prototype is tested; the optimised visualisation prototypes for + EnLil, ACIS are tested; testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated + for improvement of the prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + + A9.5: Operation: EnLil and ACIS are implemented and run on specific use-cases; the resulting databases are published on + RESILIENCE.EU; EnLil and ACIS are prepared for publication to RIs software marketplace such as EOSC/SSHOC, + CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The aim of TAURUS is to push forward our understanding of ancient religions by allowing researchers to access + documents in a new way. + In the case of written documents, with EnLil, it provides a technology for 3D acquisition and visualisation, which is + fundamental for objects that are fragile and tri-dimensional like cuneiform tablets and bullae; in addition, it enlarges + the corpus available to researchers, laying the foundation for further discovery, and locates them in the place of + discovery. + In the case of heritage artefacts, ACIS draws information from available archives and databases on the status and the + conservational history of each artefact. As such, it serves as a data source (or as a data enricher) for EnLil (when the + artefacts are tablets, and contextualised in space); additionally, it is also usable as a self-standing service for + visualisation of the single artefact (or artefact collection). + + TAURUS strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 and WP2.3) + + Motivation + TAURUS optimises effort to overcome shortages of current tools available for Religious Studies and Archaeology + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + + + 339 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + by addressing two groups of deficiencies: + 1)With EnLil, it overcomes the difficulty of the availability of the real cuneiform tablets and bullae by means of a + 3D-capable digital library, maximising exploitability of all the available data (content of the documents, their + materiality, state of preservation, lay out, palaeography of the writing, connections among texts coming from + different ages and countries, places of discovery) + 2)With ACIS, it makes available information on the transformations that artefacts have undergone in substance and + location. Through the history of restoration, it allows researchers and users to access the stories of objects but also + of the people who have observed, loved, stole, bought, stored, restored and studied them. Another effect of ACIS is + connected to issues of restoration and preventive conservation, a complex case where it is necessary to consider the + needs of the historic buildings and their relationship with the needs of the collections. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D9.1.1 Whitepaper on EnLil + This whitepaper describes the operational functioning of EnLil , intended as a + software that performs 3D virtual representation and builds a virtual ancient + BM6 6 library. Each function is detailed separately, but the whitepaper also describes + EnLil in its entirety, as a single platform for performing all the above tasks in + subsequent phases. + + BM7 7 - + + D9.1.2 Whitepaper on ACIS + This whitepaper focuses on reconstructing the mechanisms of ACIS and + illustrating the links between existing sources and databases. There are two steps: + BM8 8 1) the definition of a protocol for the narration of the conservative history of the + artistic heritage and 2) the connection between diagnostic techniques and + preventive maintenance + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + BM13 13 - + + D9.2 Training Materials for RESILIENCE + The experience and the feedback collected during the development and testing of + BM15 15 TAURUS is systematised and integrated in this deliverable, in the form of two + training packages, to be integrated with the RESILIENCE infrastructure. + + D9.3.1 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - EnLil + BM17 17 The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + + + + 340 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The database created by using EnLil on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by EnLil itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototype for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of EnLil. + D9.3.2 Data publishing on RESILIENCE - ACIS + The database created by using ACIS on the case-study corpora is published on + RESILIENCE, powered by ACIS itself. On the one hand, this presents to the + scholarly community a powerful prototyp for producing new research acquisitions + and exploring new features of religious texts; on the other hand, this displays the + potentialities of ACIS. + + BM19 19 - + + D9.4 Prepare the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS) for publication to + RESILIENCE marketplace + BM21 21 The technical documentation, source code and binaries of the TAURUS toolkit + elements are packaged as Open Source software for publication to the software + marketplaces such as EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM1 1 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 341 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM2 2 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + BM3 3 the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + + + + 342 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + BM4 4 ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + + + 343 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM5 5 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + BM6 6 STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + + + + 344 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + BM7 7 Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + + + + 345 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM8 8 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + + + 346 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM9 9 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + BM10 10 ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + + + + 347 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + BM13 13 ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + + + + 348 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM15 15 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM17 17 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 349 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM19 19 + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + + + + 350 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 9.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 9.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + + For development phase: + ●KPI 9.1: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + BM21 21 then M24; %age of correctly represented objects; min.95% + ●KPI 9.2: Efficacy of the EnLil prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrectly represented objects; max. 5% + ●KPI 9.3: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of correct links between archives per object; min.80% + ●KPI 9.4: Efficacy of the ACIS prototype, to be assessed within M12, then M22, + then M24; %age of incorrect links between archives per object; max. 20% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 9.5: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 9.6: Feedback on the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described in + D9.4), to be assessed within M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at + least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 9.7: usage assessment of the TAURUS toolkit (EnLil and ACIS, as described + in D9.4), to be assessed within 3 years after the end of the project; # of users + accessing the online database. + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 27.301,64 + + IO Desciption + + + + 351 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.603,28 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on EnLil + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 80.419,44 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of whitepaper on ACIS + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 352 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 83.395,07 + + IO Desciption + First release of TAURUS in PRODUCTION environment; second release of TAURUS in TEST environment + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + + + 353 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 83.395,04 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 66.166,42 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + + + + 354 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + 48 Activity title + Scientific preparation + 49 Activity short name + 9.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity performs and covers the following tasks: + 1)acquisition of source material and domain-specific curation; + 2)mapping of the history of conservation for artefacts of particular importance in terms of type, quality, technology and materials, and of + preservation, collector and museum history (for ACIS); + 3)validation of requirements and supervision of the software developed in activity A9.3. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 277.970,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 355 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access; FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 42.969,15 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 53.375,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships + 48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping + 49 Activity short name + 9.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is dedicated to the following tasks: + ●Recognition and experimenting of 3D acquisition and visualisation tools (for EnLil and ACIS). + ●Analysis of source archives (for tablets, archaeological site data, artefacts). + ●Layout of requirements for the software tools and for pre-processing of source archives (where needed). + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + + + + 356 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + ●Layout of requirements for the database where (meta)data extracted from sources is stored and made available to ACIS and then to + EnLil. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 121.757,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 8.523,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Test + 49 Activity short name + 9.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 357 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity is responsible for testing the TAURUS toolkit in each of its elements. In particular it tests: + 1)the 3D acquisition system developed in A9.3. + 2)The automatic metadatation prototype developed in A9.3 + 3)The optimised visualisation prototypes for EnLil, ACIS + Testing is run using a sample of domain-specific scholars and IT personnel; feedback is collected and elaborated for improvement of the + prototypes and for production of documentation and training materials. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 66.742,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 4.671,98 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 358 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Development + 49 Activity short name + 9.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + This activity carries out the development of software specified in A9.1, in particular, it aims to produce: + 1)Optimised 3D acquisition software (to be shared in principle by EnLil, ACIS). + 2)A prototype for automatic metadation of acquired material (tablets, artefacts). + 3)A repository for acquired (meta)data, as required by A9.1 + 4)An enhancement and optimisation of 3D visualisation software for each of the prototypes (EnLil, ACIS). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 224.302,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + + + 359 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.701,18 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Operation + 49 Activity short name + 9.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 10 Participant + Torino + + 52 Activity description + The operation activity ensures that the TAURUS toolkit becomes operational and that it is properly run and released. In particular: + 1)It puts in production EnLil and ACIS + 2)It runs on specific use-cases + 3)It publishes the resulting databases on RESILIENCE; + 4)It prepares EnLil and ACIS source code and binaries are packaged as Open Source software for publication to RESILIENCE + software marketplace. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + 360 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and +visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 44.227,50 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 3.095,93 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 361 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded +34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded +35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 22.386,98 22.386,98 + + 2 BM2 44.773,97 67.160,95 + + 3 BM3 95.101,00 162.261,95 + + 4 BM4 101.788,50 264.050,45 + + 5 BM5 101.788,50 365.838,95 + + 6 BM6 101.788,50 467.627,45 + + 7 BM7 101.788,50 569.415,95 + + 8 BM8 101.788,50 671.204,45 + + 9 BM9 101.788,50 772.992,95 + + 10 BM10 101.788,55 874.781,50 + + 13 BM13 101.788,50 976.570,00 + + 15 BM15 101.788,50 1.078.358,50 + + 17 BM17 101.788,50 1.180.147,00 + + 19 BM19 101.788,50 1.281.935,50 + + 21 BM21 70.812,00 1.352.747,50 + + +36 WP title + ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond +37 WP number + 10 +38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + +39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + + + + 362 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + +40 WP Leader + Andrea D'Andrea, Senior Research Fellow, OU4 UNIOR-DAAM +41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + This WP aims to provide a component of RESILIENCE dedicated to the production and fruition of a digital archive dedicated to + complex, rare and/or endangered religious texts written on various supports (stone, papyrus, etc.). To achieve this goal, it uses texts from + the Nile Valley (and beyond) as a case-study. About this case-study, the WP firstly produces an analysis of the most correct procedures + for the digitization and online publication of ancient texts and manuscripts; secondly, it sets out to develop a software able to support + scholars in the research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. The procedures and the software blueprint are intended to be + applicable to a diverse spectrum of texts, even beyond the case-study under scrutiny. + + Scope and goal + Many ancient textual documents from the Nile Valley and the other neighbour regions of north-eastern Africa, and the Near East deal + with religious content. They are written in hieroglyph, hieratic, demotic, Greek, Latin, and Coptic alphabet, Meroitic hieroglyph and + cursive, old Nubian script, epigraphic South Arabian, Arabic and Ge'ez script. The used languages are Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old + Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, Arabic and Ge‘ez. The support materials of the texts are stone, clay, + papyrus, parchment, pottery, wood. Consequently, the adopted tools range from the stylus to the cisel. + The chronology of these texts ranges from the end of the 4th millennium BC, with the earliest hieroglyph inscriptions, to the 15th century + AD, with the latest Old Nubian documents (later productions in Arabic and Coptic, mainly consist of manuscripts, lay beyond the scope + of this WP and can be covered in other RESILIENCE activities). The contents of these texts are very different and varied: descriptions + of religious ceremonies, funerary texts, prayers, incantations, lists of offerings and temple personnel, etc. + A data set of a large and rich selection of these texts (in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of + South Arabian, Ge‘ez, Arabic) is still lacking and only some partial digital archives are currently available. + As far as texts on stone and other hard supports are concerned, only very partial and unsystematic programs of scanning of inscriptions + and associated structures have been undertaken in the Nile Valley area. Still very recently (2016) teams working on the implementation + of partial corpora were relying on traditional, even if digital, photographic technique (see e.g., the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by the + Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents). Other projects, although adopting more technologically advanced procedures, including the + use of laser scanning technology, were focussing on a single site and a single type of writing support, like in the case of the von Humboldt + Universität project at in the Meroitic monumental complex at Musawwarat es-Sufra or of the Münich Museum project at the Meroitic + site of Naqa. “The Picturing Religion: The Philae Temple Graffiti Project” by the Simon Fraser University is ongoing at Philae, in + Egypt and is aimed at recording all the religious graffiti characterizing the temple. Similar activities of scanning rocky facades with rock + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + + + + 363 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + art and inscriptions were also conducted on the Fourth Nile cataract. + The automatic textual analysis was also only very rarely attempted in the study of the inscribed documents form the Nile valley. A very + famous and precocious, but very soon abandoned example was represented by Meroitic inscriptions and took place through the digitization + of the transliterated texts. In any case, as in the case of manuscripts, no attempts were made to integrate in a single procedure the scan of + the document, the analysis of its text and the analysis of the support. + In the case of funerary contexts, although some projects were undertaken for digitising tombs in the Nile valley, like in the case of the + Saite Saqqara Tombs Project of the University of Tübingen, this was not related to the analysis of the texts associated to the tombs and + of the writing support. + The same tardiness can be remarked in adopting digital technologies not only for recording but also for analysing texts on papyrus and the + writing support itself. Moreover, also in this case only specific projects on single collections can be remarked, like in the case of the ongoing + TPOP project in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. + Even in the case of manuscripts (and other texts on soft supports, such as papyrus, parchment etc.) from the Nile Valley, only specific + and sometimes partial projects were conducted so far (see a list at Digitized Manuscript Collections - A Research Guide to Middle + Eastern Studies - Guides at Penn Libraries (upenn.edu)). So far no attempts were made to relate the scanning of the manuscripts to the + automatic identification and analysis of the text, as well as to the analysis of the writing support. Moreover, the lack of suitable portable + equipment should be lamented, as this greatly limits the possibility of recording large collections of manuscripts kept in far and remote + locations. + Even when attempts were made to conduct an automatised linguistic analysis of the texts, like, e.g. the one conducted on Sahidic Coptic + manuscripts by the University of Colorado, the textual analysis was unrelated to the implementation of a digital reproduction of the + manuscript and to the analysis of the writing support. + + ReTINA aims to create an environment that in the first place lays out and optimises common guidelines for the digitisation and digital + archiving of such a diverse array of sources, accounting for the challenges posed by the very different languages and writing support types. + Secondly, building on these guidelines, it aims to produce a blueprint and a prototype of a software tool for supporting scholars in the + research and interpretation of this corpus of ancient texts. In the third place, it uses the guidelines, the software prototype and domain- + specific expertise to lay out specifications for hardware that can be used to acquire texts in different support even in difficult environments + (because of climatic, political, or economical reasons). + The interconnection between the merely textual element and the religious component, given by the very nature of the texts under scrutiny, + allows ReTINA to go beyond the linguistic aspect, assisting researchers with the necessary information on context, religious significance + and religious history that allow to improve the interpretation of the analysed documents. + + Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + A10.1: Analysis. This activity is focused on selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from + different times, regions, languages and supports. + + A10.2: Scientific preparation. Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing of the datasets and description of the original contexts of + relevance with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts. + + A10.3: Development. This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the + complexity of the case study. The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process. Finally, it develops + a software prototype for annotation and visualisation of the texts. + + A10.4: Test. This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3 + + A10.5: Operations. This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for + release in the RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and + scientific point of view. +42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1, uses the services of WP2 and WP12 and provides TNA Services under the coordination of WP11 + + + + 364 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + +43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + ReTINA empowers RESILIENCE RI by implementing a digital archive containing some datasets of religious + content from sites in the ancient world along the Nile Valley and its surroundings, including various languages and + cultures. Starting with a comprehensive review of the state of the art in the field of study (white paper) and using + digital datasets available to the research unit, a data model will be designed. The schema will be consistent with the + main international metadata standards, taxonomies and thesauri and will be published as Open Data and/or Linked + Open Data to encourage the spread of the principles of FAIR data and, more generally, of Open Science in this area + of study. Some mapping procedures, which will allow to carry out a data-integration among data encoded according + to different schemas, will be designed, and implemented to facilitate the integration of various datasets and + heterogenous archives. + The goal is achieved through completion of several steps, examining digital datasets already directly available to + UNIOR or through agreements in place with Italian Museums and Archives to highlight strengths and weaknesses + in the sharing and reuse of data. At the same time, other paper archives (cards, photos, texts, etc.) will be digitised + according to a data scheme developed by UNIOR. + The digital archives will be compared and integrated thanks to the semantic and syntactic interoperability guaranteed + by the adoption of international metadata. The texts, appropriately transliterated, will be able to be annotated by the + users who will also be able to visualise the support of the text in 3D and have precise information on the material + used to inscribe the subject with religious content. Different digitisations approaches and 3D technologies will be + tried to identify ways to digitally acquire these materials; the results will give important results on the best practices + to create digital resources compliant with the requisite of RESILIENCE. + + ReTINA strengthens the RESILIENCE RI supply of research-enhancing services, especially those dedicated to the + digitisation tools (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + + Motivation + ReTINA addresses a gap in the digital description and fruition of Religious Texts in ancient and rare script and from + complex contexts by optimising a shared data model and by producing software prototype for fruition. The domain- + specific character of Religious Studies, where the linguistic significance of the texts must be linked to specific + historical, theological and cultural factors, allows to account for descriptors that go beyond the merely linguistic + level, and can lay the basis for further digitisation works. The fragmented context of the Nile Valley case-study + represents a microcosmos that can be extended to other equally (or more) fragmented contexts: ReTINA therefore + represents a prototype that, thanks to digitisation and complex visualisation, can increase knowledge and + understanding even beyond the Nile Valley. +44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate +Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + BM1 1 - + + BM2 2 - + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + BM5 5 - + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + BM6 6 This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + + + + 365 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D10.1: White paper: report on digital archives on ancient religious content + This whitepaper describes projects, schemas, metadata and taxonomies for digital + BM6 6 archives on ancient religious content, and serves as a basis for the further + development of ReTINA. + + BM7 7 - + + BM8 8 . + + D10.2: Preliminary Data-Model + This deliverable contains the schema for encoding texts and manuscripts according + BM9 9 to Open Science principles, accounting for the different supports and for the + specificities due to the religious nature of the texts. + + D10.3: Data-acquisition procedures + This deliverable validates the preliminary data-model, and completes it by + BM10 10 describing procedures to digitise texts and manuscripts and to enrich the + digitisation with 3D data, chemical and Mineralogical data etc. + + BM13 13 - + + D10.4: Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface + This deliverable consists of a prototype of ReTINA, a software prototype for + BM15 15 annotating texts and manuscripts according to the specifications of D10.3,for + archiving, and for visualising the annotated texts and the relative + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D10.5 Prepare ReTINA for publication to RESILIENCE RI marketplace + The technical documentation, source code and binaries of ReTINA are packaged + BM21 21 as Open Source software for publication to RIs software marketplace such as + EOSC/SSHOC, CLARIN, RESILIENCE, etc. In addition the validated guidelines + are published for re-use by the scholarly community + + +45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment +of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + BM1 1 scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + + + + 366 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM2 2 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + + + + 367 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + BM3 3 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + BM4 4 expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 368 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + BM5 5 ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + + + + 369 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM6 6 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + BM7 7 The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + + + + 370 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + BM8 8 date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 371 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM9 9 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + + + + 372 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM10 10 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + BM13 13 General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + + + + 373 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + BM15 15 ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + + + + 374 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + BM17 17 ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + BM19 19 monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + + + + 375 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables. + The progress of the WP is measured through periodic reports by the WP leader on + the ongoing activities; additionally, specific measurable KPIs are checked and + monitored throughout the progress of the WP work. Ex-post assessment of the + expected results is conducted by analysing the feedback of testers and of the + scientific community. More in detail, the KPIs are the following: + General: + ●KPI 10.0a: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 10.0b: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in + BM21 21 the (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: + 1max. non-compliance/month + ●For development phase: + ●KPI 10.1: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. + 75% + ●KPI 10.2: Feedback on the Preliminary data model (D10.2), to be assessed + within M18; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. + 15% + ●KPI 10.3: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of positive + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + + + + 376 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 10.4: Feedback on Annotation tools and interactive interface (as described + in D10.4), to be assessed within M12, then M24, then M26; %age of negative + feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For pre-release phase: + ●KPI 10.5: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of positive feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; min. 75% + ●KPI 10.6: Feedback on ReTINA (as described in D10.5), to be assessed within + M30; %age of negative feedback from a sample of at least 30 scholars; max. 15% + + For ex-post assessment: + KPI 10.7: usage assessment of ReTINA-powered database, to be assessed within 3 + years after the end of the project; # of users accessing the online database. + + +46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 22.386,98 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 44.773,97 + + IO Desciption + Draft structure of Whitepaper on digital archives on ancient religious content + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 95.101,00 + + IO Desciption + Approval of first release of the SW Technical Analysis artefacts for ReTINA + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + + + + 377 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 101.788,55 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 378 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Document delivered + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + First release of Prototype for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in PRODUCTION environment; second release of Prototype + for Annotation Tools and interactive interface in TEST environment + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 101.788,50 + + IO Desciption + Application of ReTINA data model and annotator to the case-study corpora + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 70.812,00 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + + + + 379 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud + storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD + scholarships not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, + dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + +48 Activity title + Analysis and Prototyping +49 Activity short name + 10.1 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + + + + 380 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + This activity carries out the task of selecting and analysing digital or paper archives containing religious texts coming from different times + and geographical regions and written in Egyptian, Coptic, Meroitic, Old Nubian, Greek, Latin, different variants of South Arabian, + Ge‘ez, on different writing supports. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 210.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 14.700,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Operation +49 Activity short name + 10.5 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 381 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity implements the data model and the prototype developed in A10.3, ensuring that they are prepared for release in the + RESILIENCE infrastructure and that they are optimised for the RESILIENCE ecosystem from a technical and scientific point of + view. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 135.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.450,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 382 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Scientific preparation +49 Activity short name + 10.2 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + Firstly, this activity has the goal of cataloguing the datasets and description of the original contexts of relevance (geo-referenced) and + position of the documents within them, cataloguing the support materials with the adoption of an archaeometric approach. Secondly, it + collects transliterations and translations of the selected texts, analysing their linguistic peculiarity, their formal aspects, and highlighting + common traits and topics in the documents coming from different periods and cultures. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 232.500,00 € + + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + + + 383 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 27.247,50 € + + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships not included in item (a); + Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 106.750,00 € + + Cost description: PhD scholarships +48 Activity title + Development +49 Activity short name + 10.3 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity develops guidelines for corpus digitisation, optimising existing data models to account for the complexity of the case study. + The activity also has the task of developing the following steps of the digitisation process, including 3D data-acquisition, identification of + standards, metadata, taxonomies, thesauri, ontologies, etc. + Finally, it develops a software prototype for annotation of the texts and visualisation of the annotated texts and relative information. + + ITSERR software development activity is based upon DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure 1.12) to: + ●allow the deployment of code faster and in an automated way; + ●increase speed to delivery of applications and services; + ●ensure alignment of development and IT operations (WP2) (in the same way that agile aligns development and researchers); + ●and integrate security in the design process. + Agile DevSecOps is compatible with Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) principles, ensuring that the software + can be reliably released any time. The goal is that all software components are merged into the main branch as often as possible, passing + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + + + + 384 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + automated tests before each commit. CI/CD does not replace User Acceptance Testing, but quickly provides incremental releases, using + as much automation as possible. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 380.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 26.600,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - +48 Activity title + Test +49 Activity short name + 10.4 +50 Activity Start month and duration + + + + + 385 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Activity Start month 6 Activity Duration 37 + +51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + +52 Activity description + This activity is tasked with testing both the data model and the software prototype developed in A10.3. Testing is run using a sample of + domain-specific scholars and IT personnel, based on the corpus collected through activities A10.1 and A10.2; feedback is collected and + elaborated for improvement of the tools and for production of documentation and training materials. +54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.500,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 386 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley +and Beyond] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + + + + + 387 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 6.163,05 6.163,05 + + 2 BM2 54.314,50 60.477,55 + + 3 BM3 49.812,90 110.290,45 + + 4 BM4 49.812,90 160.103,35 + + 5 BM5 49.812,90 209.916,25 + + 6 BM6 49.812,90 259.729,15 + + 7 BM7 49.812,90 309.542,05 + + 8 BM8 49.812,90 359.354,95 + + 9 BM9 49.812,90 409.167,85 + + 10 BM10 49.812,85 458.980,70 + + 13 BM13 49.812,90 508.793,60 + + 15 BM15 49.812,90 558.606,50 + + 17 BM17 49.812,90 608.419,40 + + 19 BM19 26.385,58 634.804,98 + + 21 BM21 1.479,13 636.284,11 + + + 36 WP title + Trans-National Access + 37 WP number + 11 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 2 WP Duration 41 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 388 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Fabrizio D’Avenia, Associate Professor, OU5 UNIPA-DCS + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + Short description + WP11 is dedicated to the management of Trans-National Access activities, which includes: administrative effort to ensure the proper + development of the process from the call to the payment of the grants; provision of all necessary equipment for TNA grant-holders to + develop their research; coordination with the RESILIENCE TNA programme. + + Scope + ITSERR Transnational Access Programme offers physical and virtual access to the most significant tools and sources in the field of + religious studies. + This offer is unique, because it combines data of institutions participating in ITSERR, thus offering knowledge that is of high importance + not only for scholars, but also for decision makers from society and policy. The transnational access service is an answer to the need of + scholars to have direct and effective access to the objects of their research, which are preserved in different institutions. Often these collections + neither have been digitised nor can be uploaded without restricted access. + Through its Transnational Access Programme ITSERR offers support and expertise for research stays at Italian centres and libraries + that hold relevant collections for the study of religions. These institutions grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, + documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies. + The aim of ITSERR is to facilitate and foster a sophisticated and advanced TNA system to sources, resources, expertise and services for + researchers in Religious Studies and related disciplines which are available within ITSERR, ensure an efficient access workflow and a + single entry point. To provide excellence-driven access to its physical resources, ITSERR offers assistance to researchers seeking to conduct + a research visit at one of the partner facilities offering this type of access. The goal of the research visits is to grant scholars direct and + effective access to the objects of their research. This includes access to research material and instructions to effectively make use of it as well + as a work place at the facility. Furthermore, ITSERR aims at matching all successful TNA applicants with experts at the facilities who + can guide them or offer advice on the subject of study. + Moreover, to cover all disciplines involved in the study of religions in all their facets and provide the widest range of relevant materials and + expertise, ITSERR seeks to include further partners into its TNA program. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + - 120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated number of 50 users + - 108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + + Activities + A11.1 TNA Services Brainstorming: based on the deliverables existing within RESILIENCE, the Consortium brainstorms on the + best ways to provide TNA services to the ITSERR Italian Researchers ecosystem. This activity leads to the creation of the TNA + Management Plan. + + A11.2 Planning of TNA activities: A list of the resources that could be made available to the TNA users is finalised and a calendar of + the Call for Proposal publication is established. + + + + 389 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A11.3 Execution of TNA activities: The Call for proposals are published following the plan established. A Peer Review Committee is + set-up to read, qualify and select the best proposals submitted by the TNA candidates. When the candidates are selected, the TNA + administration organises all the visits for the different resources. + + A11.4 TNA activities follow-up: This activity, started with the Call for Proposal, aims at continuously collecting feedback from all + ITSERR TNA stakeholders and synchronising the TNA strategy and planning with RESILIENCE. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + This WP is governed by WP1 and manages the TNA Services to be provided within WP3 to WP10 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + The access policy is formalised, published within an ITSERR TNA Management Plan and a first set of TNA calls + for proposal are implemented. + Researchers are put in the condition of knowing what RESILIENCE services are offered, what are the benefits of + accessing them, where they are accessible and following which procedure, etc. For those services requiring an + excellence-driven access mode RESILIENCE puts in place a fully operational TNA call-cycle. Such a call system, + accessible to physical and digital services already in place and running at RESILIENCE facilities, is made operational + during this project. + + Within the 30 months of the project, RESILIENCE aims at granting + -120 weeks of access to its facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place and running to an estimated + number of 50 users + -108 months of access to the working groups and research teams of ITSERR to an estimated number of 25 users + -All performed over 4 calls for proposals published each semester + With respect to physical access, the RI assumes as the unit of access: + -a week for individuals and/or teams willing to access facilities, data, services and experts that are already in place + and running, since a week is an appropriate amount of time to use the material instruments of research (archives, + libraries, collections). A week is a unit of access that grants the needed acquaintance with the documents and sources + and their effective use within the research activity. In the TNA programme organised by the RESILIENCE Starting + Community, ReIReS, users usually spent two weeks at the TNA provider to develop their project. + -A month for individuals and/or teams willing to access the working groups and research teams of ITSERR in its + technical development, allowing their participation in the making of the services. + + This TNA programme strengthens particularly the RESILIENCE supply of research-enhancing services in its + physical access mode, and most importantly works as a case-study to further the RESILIENCE development of + TNA activities (See Annex 1 - Figure WP2.2 .and WP2.3) + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + BM1 1 quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + BM2 2 - + + + + + 390 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM3 3 - + + BM4 4 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM5 5 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM6 6 - + + BM7 7 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM8 8 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM9 9 - + + BM10 10 - + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + BM13 13 ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + BM15 15 - + + + + 391 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + BM15 15 - + + BM17 17 - + + BM19 19 - + + D11.1: TNA Management Plan: The TNA Management Plan describes criteria of + excellence for TNA hosts and users, their rights and duties within the program, + quality monitoring procedures and responsibilities (incl. Peer Review Committee), + and efficient information providing and research enhancing workflows. + + D11.2: TNA Management Report: This deliverable will present the results of each + period of TNA activities, evaluating the results, difficulties and potential risks and + opportunities. The report will be confidential, only for members of the + consortium, including the Ministry. The report will contain: + BM21 21 ●TNA period activities, proceedings and results: the activities fulfilled are outlined, + the access services of the access period, the composition of the selection panel, the + handling of document security and gender aspects + ●An overview of the TNA user projects carried out and their scientific output is + given + ●The possibilities of Virtual Access are outlined + ●The evaluation of the TNA user questionnaires + ●The level of compliance with TNA KPIs + ●An assessment of difficulties and risks + ●A conclusion + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM1 1 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + BM2 2 The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + + + + 392 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM2 2 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM3 3 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + BM4 4 level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + + + + 393 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM5 5 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + BM6 6 approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + + + + 394 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM7 7 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM8 8 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + BM9 9 ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + + + + 395 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM10 10 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + BM13 13 ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + + + + 396 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM15 15 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM17 17 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + + + + 397 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM19 19 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + The specific TNA indicators are monitored each semester by the TNA Team + Leader + ●For each TNA call for proposal cycle + ○KPI 11.1: Level of scientific relevance is measured by the percentage of the + scientific Peer Review Committee (PRC) that analysed the proposals: Based on the + level of presence of each PRC member: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.2: Access provision efficiency measured by the ratio between planned + Number of access users and actual users per call: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.3: TNA efficiency is measured by the ratio between the proposals + approved by the PRC and the access slots provided by ITSERR: Target: min. 90% + ○KPI 11.4: Access Quality is measured by the average of the evaluations from + BM21 21 replied questionnaires by TNA users: target: min. 80% of satisfied users + + Deliverables quality and deadlines are monitored monthly by the Infrastructure + Manager, the TNA Team Leader and the TNA WP leader + ●KPI 11.5: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking + Matrix (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery + date and the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + ●KPI 11.6: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2 per month + ●KPI 11.7: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + + + + 398 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 6.163,05 + + IO Desciption + Document delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 54.314,50 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + First TNA Call published + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Second TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM7 + + + + + 399 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Third TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 49.812,85 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Fourth TNA Call published; Document delivered + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM17 + + + + + 400 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 49.812,90 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 26.385,58 + + IO Desciption + Ordinary operating activities + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 1.479,13 + + IO Desciption + Last version of documents delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access + operations and research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + + + + + 401 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Nessuno + + 48 Activity title + TNA activities follow-up + 49 Activity short name + 11.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 5 Activity Duration 38 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The final objective of this activity is to make sure that, as for all ITSERR WPs, feedback is collected on the tasks performed, discussed + among the appropriate stakeholders to nurture our Continuous Improvement Process. To do so, the TNA team will: + ●Ensure that all users fill in the evaluation questionnaire to monitor the quality of the TNA services and request the users to publish + their results (ie. via RESILIENCE publication services) + ●Analyse periodically the feedback within the TNA Management Team and reports the suggested improvement, with costs, duration and + resources needed, in the bi-monthly Services Report to the Steering Committee meeting. The SCM will decide what suggestions to + implement + ●Communication the with RESILIENCE TNA Team + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 34.559,19 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 402 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 2.419,14 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + TNA Services Brainstorming + 49 Activity short name + 11.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + A contact is made with the RESILIENCE team managing the TNA to get the latest version of their TNA Management Plan. + The ITSERR team performs an analysis of their RESILIENCE TNA Management Plan. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to decide the best way to organise the TNA activities within Italy. + After these two workshops, the team publishes a ITSERR version of the TNA Management Plan and any improvement proposals to + the mother project are synchronised with the RESILIENCE TNA team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 15.759,86 € + + + + + 403 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 403,19 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Planning of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 3 Activity Duration 1 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + + + + 404 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + A catalogue of all digital and physical resources that can be proposed through the call for proposals is inventoried. + Two co-creation collaborative workshops are organised with all the WP Leaders and the key researchers participating in the Work + Packages activities to: + ●Establish the TNA resources selection criteria + ●Select the best digital and physical resources to be proposed for access in the future TNA calls for proposals. + After these two workshops, the team publishes the resources within the TNA Management Plan and communicates these to the + RESILIENCE project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 16.971,84 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 488,03 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Execution of TNA activities + 49 Activity short name + 11.3 + + + + 405 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + The execution of the TNA services will be performed as such: + 1.Based on the pre-established planning, publication of dedicated calls for submission of research which detail the expertise and services + provided by ITSERR TNA, listing requirements and conditions for access. + 2.A Peer Review Committee provides a selection and ranking of the submitted projects, on the basis of rigorous criteria and giving priority + to specific kinds of proposals such as those engaged with gender issues, those led by young scholars or those proposed by users who belong to + countries with no similar RI in this domain. + 3.The consortium grants to users the funds for travel and subsistence for the whole duration of their project. + 4.The users of transnational access organise their stay in the ITSERR partners facilities, with the constant tutorial of experts which + grant a specific training on the study and use of the documents preserved in their collections or archives and offer their experience to discuss + the setting, implementation and evaluation of the research activities. + All these activities are coordinated, published and administered by a dedicated TNA Administrative Team. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 56.798,20 € + + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 470.568,96 € + + Cost description: Licences, hardware, cloud storage, services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + + + + 406 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [11 - Trans-National Access] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 38.315,70 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 407 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 33 Timing of the different work packages: See documents uploaded + 34 WP inter-relation with other WPs: See documents uploaded + 35 Costs Scheduling according with the Intermediate Objectives: + + Bimester Title Costs Cumulative Costs + + 1 BM1 225.784,62 225.784,62 + + 2 BM2 255.054,54 480.839,16 + + 3 BM3 293.681,45 774.520,61 + + 4 BM4 293.681,45 1.068.202,06 + + 5 BM5 255.054,54 1.323.256,60 + + 6 BM6 216.427,63 1.539.684,23 + + 7 BM7 216.427,63 1.756.111,86 + + 8 BM8 216.427,63 1.972.539,49 + + 9 BM9 216.427,63 2.188.967,12 + + 10 BM10 216.427,60 2.405.394,72 + + 13 BM13 216.427,63 2.621.822,35 + + 15 BM15 216.427,63 2.838.249,98 + + 17 BM17 271.638,34 3.109.888,32 + + 19 BM19 271.638,34 3.381.526,66 + + 21 BM21 204.662,23 3.586.188,89 + + + 36 WP title + Project and Impact Management + 37 WP number + 1 + 38 Start month(relative to kick-off of the project) and duration (in month) + + WP Start 1 WP Duration 42 + + 39 OU(s) participating to the WP + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + + + + 408 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + OU Short Name OU Name Applicant + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie + 1 APPLICANT: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche + dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" + + Dipartimento Asia Africa e + 4 CO-APPLICANT: Università di Napoli L’Orientale + Mediterraneo + + Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze CO-APPLICANT: Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio + 2 Umane Emilia + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + 5 Dipartimento Culture e Società CO-APPLICANT: Università degli Studi di Palermo + + + 40 WP Leader + Carlo Meghini, Director of Research, OU 1 CNR-ISTI + 41 Summary of the activities envisaged in the WP + The Project Management and Impact WP is dedicated to the implementation of all organisational and financial measures that bring the + project to achieve its objectives and to evaluate its impact in the short and long term. It is therefore an activity that oversees all WPs. + The activities managed by WP1 produce excellent individual results for each WP but collectively integrated within the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem and by spreading these results through various market places (e.g., SSHOC, CLARIN, DARIAH, etc.), they will + generate a chain reaction of new research data, capacities, interconnections, exploitation, etc. becoming far more than the sum of individual + WP results. + To support the work conducted by scientific and technical teams, therefore, the WP aims at: + Implementing the ITSERR governance structure, and ensuring partners’ coordinated and cooperative work; + Guaranteeing the guidance, cooperation, synergy and synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE; + Monitoring the progress of the whole project and of the single WPs and managing contingencies; + Identifying risks and implementing effective control measures; + Monitoring the quality of the deliverables produced and the respect of progress indicators; + Ensuring the respect of security measures for the deliverables produced and the services provided; + Managing the human resources involved in the project; + Implementing a communication strategy for the project and coordinating its activities within RESILIENCE; + Identifying and organising training activities for the human resources involved in the project; + Detailing the RESILIENCE socio-economic ex ante impact study for the Italian context, in terms of effective impact cases, to be + evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms. + Endorse and adapt the RESILIENCE impact measurement methodology to ITSERR to identify, evaluate and quantify the project’s + impact in the long term in its different areas of action (science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources); + Ensure ITSERR sustainability beyond the 30 months of duration of the project. + + Summary of activities + + + + 409 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Summary of activities + A1.1 Governance set-up: During this activity, the ITSERR management team will perform the following activities: + - Organisation of the Kick-off event + - Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: + - Detailed Organisation Plan (See D1.1) + - Quality Assurance Plan (See D1.2) + - Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3) + - Security Management Plan(See D1.5) + - Set-up of the entire management and governance structures of ITSERR: Board of Directors (BoD); Steering Committee; International + Advisory Board (IAB) and Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF) + - Organisation of WP Staff Trainings + - Organised the synchronisation of knowledge, resources, software and services with RESILIENCE + - Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners + - Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + - Organise the closure event and submit the final report to the Ministry + - Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + + A1.2 Monitoring: During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager will lead the management of the following activities: + - Daily team stand-up + - Weekly monitoring + - Cross-project follow-up + - Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting + - HR Monitoring + - Impact Monitoring + - Scientific coordination + - Project Management activities performed by the Infrastructure Manager and the Team Leaders + - Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager + - Security Mgt/Monitoring activities under the responsibilities of the Security Officer + + A1.3 to A1.6 Finance & Admin Management for the different partner institutions: cover the project financial duties, administrative + aspects, Human Resources management and support of the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management. + This WP targets excellence in all domains but specifically in the recruitment as it is a key factor of success for the project. Our excellence + strategy is based on the following activity aspects: + - Candidates’ sourcing strategy for an “Excellent satisfactory capacity”: targeting partners departments providing excellence in their + research fields and pre-selection of Italian companies delivering already thousands of ICT staff in Italy; + - High competence: strict and professional qualification process mostly relying on the specialised technical support from our specialised + researchers. All profiles and skills required are described in a skills matrix shared among all recruiters. + - Professional, specialised and innovative qualification material created by our HR team with our Cluster of Competences (CC) composed + by the best researchers and technologists in the domain + - Technical interviews led by Specialised staff from the CC + - The Resource Pool (RP) has an adequate size (2 times the size of the ITSERR yearly staffing plans). + - The content of the RP (incl. CVs) is always accurate and up-to-date. + - Continuous recruitment: implemented by two approaches: 1)Continuous selection of candidates to feed a Resource Pool (RP) exceeding + ITSERR Staffing Plans (reviewed monthly, quarterly & yearly) 2) including a special recruitment strategy for unplanned situations + + A1.7 Impact Management: This activity acts as a transversal WP activity which cooperates with all other WPs to develop an impact + measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact in the long term in its different areas of action such as + science, society, economy, politics and policy, innovation, human resources. This activity will produce the D1.4 Impact Analysis Report + (IAR). + + A1.8 Communication Management: based on the Communication and Dissemination Plan (D1.3), the communication team will create + and implement the ITSERR CDP, develop new or updated communication means like flyers, banners etc. + + + + + 410 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + A1.9 Training Management: Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and + RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) + necessary to create a ITSERR training framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and + methods to support researchers in using RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + 42 WP inter-relation with other WWPP + The WPs 2 to 12 are governed by WP1 + 43 Most relevant outcome: + Outcome + All ITSERR activities are meant to produce key building blocks to the 50+ research services of the RESILIENCE + RI ecosystem. + It is correct to state that each WP produces prototype/products and new research (meta)data within a specific area. + But to create a chain reaction of added-value, ITSERR ensures the interoperability and reusability of all data, + software and services produced within the project. + From a scientific point of view, ITSERR includes key scientists who are aware of each other’s activities, specificities + and methodologies, and have a long-standing history of cooperation, as witnessed, for instance, by the recently + launched national PhD course in religious studies. From a technical point of view, the following points apply: + - All WP Leaders meet weekly within the Steering Committee to monitor that activities are progressing as planned + and that resources usage is optimal. + - All WP software requirements are architected and designed by the same architecture team to ensure that a software + re-used existing/shared components, that a software output could be reused as an input to another system, that + systems can be interconnected among themselves but also with other stakeholders (e.g. publishers, GLAM, etc.) + - All Data requirements are modeled by the same Data Management Team to ensure ontological, semantic and + syntactic interoperability not only within RESILIENCE RI ecosystem but more generally with the majority of DH + ecosystems. + - Experience and knowledge generated within each individual WP is centralized and processed to create new + learning material such as best practices for specific research area, , toolkit user guidance, new methods for exploiting + specific research material, etc. + ITSERR is the result of a coherent and pondered self-assessment of the required resources, workload, locations and + skills, intersected with the resources, abilities, and facilities of the applicant and the co-applicants. Facilities have + been chosen on the basis of the scientific excellence generated by the research and faculty departments, as well as by + the overall environment (here including industry) surrounding them. The maintenance of the balance between these + elements is guaranteed by the work of WP1. This WP dedicated to project and impact management is vital to the + project because it guarantees coherence with the RESILIENCE RI and delivers the following outcomes: + ●guarantee an adequate identification, coordination and monitoring of the project resources, aims, objectives and + activities + ●ensure an interdisciplinary work within and in-between religious sciences and information sciences; + ●professional communication and dissemination from start to finish + ●guarantee the magnitude of the impact that projects contributing to the construction of an SSH-related research + infrastructure usually have on the involved institutions, the areas where they invest their funds, the societies directly + and indirectly benefiting from them, the human resources they rely on. + ●Quality of the deliverables is assured through strict quality control policies and frequent monitoring + ●Security is ensured for all deliverables and services produced for the Digital Humanities research community + ●All our staff is sufficiently trained to ensure the usage and benefit of our management and development + infrastructures. + One of the most important outcomes though, is the fact that all software and services, including the training and + documentation material, are provided professionally on the ITSERR research community and that we also provide a + service desk to all researchers in need of these products and services. + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + + + + 411 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The project benefits from the unprecedented opportunity given by the PNRR to invest in knowledge and people to + produce innovation in science and markets (including the labour market), thus WP1 transforms such a challenge into + the ITSERR organisational and management structures. + 44 List of WP deliverables that will be available according with the timing set by the Intermediate + Objectives: + + Title Bimester Deliverables + + D1.1: Detailed Organisational Plan (DOP): The DOP is the plan completely + documenting the project management, its development and tooling, the + organisation governance (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.3), the management processes + (See Annex 1 - Figure WP1.4) and also templates supporting the reporting activity. + The consortium management structure consists of a total of four entities, decision + making and advisory bodies. + ●Board of Directors (BoD) consists of the IM, the Scientific Coordinator, + RESILIENCE CEO, a Principal Investigator (PI) of UNIPA and a PI of + UNIMORE. The Board elects a Chair and oversees the ultimate decisions on all + strategic choices and issues concerning the development of ITSERR. The BoD + reviews all WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy and allowing to reach + excellence in the contract outcomes. The fact that the RESILIENCE CEO is + present on the board helps to reinforce the guidance, cooperation, synergy and + synchronisation of activities among all WP teams and RESILIENCE. The BoD + meets bi-monthly. + ●Steering Committee: chaired by the IM and composed of the Quality Manager + (QM), the Security Officer (SO), all Team Leaders (TLs) and all WP leaders + (WPLs). This committee reviews the delivery of the WP outcomes in due time and + with the expected quality. They are the warrants of the scientific and technological + excellence produced within the WPs. They meet monthly and produce a Service + Monitoring Report (D1.5) each two months submitted to the Board. + ●International Advisory Board (IAB) consists of 9 representatives of major + international academic institutions and of major stakeholders of the project and + ensures advice and evaluation on the general strategy of the project, providing an + BM1 1 independent view on the effectiveness of the accomplishment of the objectives of + the project and on the impact of its outcome within and outside the academic field. + The IAB receives key WP deliverables impacting the contract strategy to be + assessed and debated with the objective to reach excellence in the contract + outcomes. They will meet each semester. + ●Stakeholders Strategic Forum (SSF): the ESFRI Stakeholders Forum is a newly + established platform, developed by ESFRI with the ambition to instigate an open + dialogue among the different European research infrastructure stakeholders, to + reinforce the position of RIs as an essential pillar of the European Research Area. + ITSERR annually hosts its stakeholders (public and private research entities, + companies, policy and decision-makers, citizens) in a similar framework, aiming at + the enhancement of networking activities, shared decision-making, knowledge and + technology transfer. One key project goal is that all ITSERR outcomes are FAIR + (findable, etc.) within the most prominent marketplaces such as SSHOC/EOSC, + H2IOSC, Clarin, etc. + ITSERR will use Design Thinking and Agile/Scrum as core approaches as there + are in Italy a large pool of such trained experts. Scrum is well suited for its agility, + fast developments of new developments as well as evolutive maintenance for such + research-based, fast changing projects. + To respect Italian and EU accessibility directives and provide accessible services + and tools to the Italian Digital Humanities community, our teams will also endorse + usability and accessibility standards such as accessibility standards (i.e. WCAG 2.1, + ATAG, UAAG and XAG, etc.). For ensuring security-proofed development and + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + + + + 412 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + operations, we complement our approach with DevSecOps (See Annex 1 - Figure + WP1.5 and WP1.6). For technical documentation, their scope and content are + specified by endorsed development standards such as Rational Unified Process + (RUP). + The European Commission PM² Methodology is the project management + methodology adopted by ITSERR. It is a lean and easy to implement methodology + suitable for any type of project as it enables project teams to manage projects + effectively and deliver solutions and benefits to their organisations and + stakeholders. + + D1.2: Quality Assessment Plan (QAP): Based on ISO 9001 quality approach + principles, a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), imposed on all WPs, will define the + quality expectations for the scope and duration of the contract. The Quality + Indicators of the QAP are always two-fold: 1) Scientific: targeting the scientific + excellence expected by the project and 2) Technical: assessing the methodological + and technical requirements that the deliverable must satisfy to be approved. The + QAP aims to ensure that all activities performed as part of the project comply with + the RESILIENCE’s policies, methodologies, WP requirements and RESILIENCE + quality governance framework. + + D1.3 Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP): The plan adapts the C&D + strategy of RESILIENCE to ITSERR, guaranteeing a sound coordination on + what, how, when and to whom is communicated to the Italian and European + targeted audiences. It covers topics such as strategy for online communication, + social media collaboration, face-to-face collaboration, conferences and workshops, + feedback management, corporate design, tools, channels, touchpoints, monitoring, + analytics and reporting. + + D1.5: Security Management Plan (SMP): The Security Management Plan will be + elaborated to define all aspects of the working practices of the project to guarantee + secure delivery. It will contain a Secure Coding/Development Guidelines aligned + with “ISO/IEC 27034 Information technology – Security techniques”, the + OWASP Developer Guide, Testing Guide and Top-10 Application Security Risks. + Adherence to these guidelines will be strictly monitored by the Security Officer + through, in example code reviews, to ensure the security and quality of the + deliverables. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report and Meeting: The contract execution progress is + presented to the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report + which includes at least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + BM2 2 D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + + + + 413 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM2 2 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM3 3 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM4 4 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + + + + 414 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM5 5 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM6 6 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + BM7 7 the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + + + + 415 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM8 8 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM9 9 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + BM10 10 description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + + + + 416 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM13 13 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM15 15 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + BM17 17 submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + + + + 417 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM19 19 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc + + D1.4 Impact Analysis Report (IAR)(M30): The document reports on the metrics + and indicators of the RESILIENCE impact, the methodology chosen to identify + and measure them according to the RESILIENCE impact areas. + + D1.6: Bi-monthly Progress Report: The contract execution progress is presented to + the Ministry’s Project Officer in the Bi-Monthly Progress Report which includes at + least the information presented below: + ●The Deliverable Tracking Matrix (DTM) including planned and actually + submitted deliverables. + ●Progress during this period including description of the activities carried out, + description of the results achieved, and comments on on-going tasks. This includes + the lists of meetings that took place during the concerned month. + ●Tasks planned during the reported period. Chart or table showing the planned + BM21 21 and actual progress, and future tasks. + ●Reporting on the service performance levels during the reported period. + ●Problems and issues encountered during the execution of the tasks including + solved, new, and pending problems and issues. + ●Risk list and status. + ●Action list and status. + ●Contractual figures: + ○Invoicing report, + ○Efforts (e.g. timesheet)per ITSERR personnel employed, + ○Material acquired, etc. + + D1.7: Closure Report(M30): ITSERR management team will provide at the + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + + + + 418 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + contract end, a final report listing the full list of deliverables and services due for + the contract and their final status, as well as the financial summary on the + expenses. + The final report shall also include: + ●The Service Level measurement report. + ●Pain points and lessons learned. + ●Improvements that took place during the contract. + ●Knowledge base content and its future evolution. + ●Human resources skills / competencies and training + + + 45 Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators relevant to the monitoring and ex-VAR assessment + of the expected results: + + Title Bimester Objective, quantitative, and measurable indicators + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + BM1 1 Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + + + + 419 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM2 2 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + + + + 420 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + BM3 3 For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + + + + 421 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Number of report not meeting the content + requirements; Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM4 4 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + + + + 422 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + BM5 5 IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + + + + 423 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM6 6 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + + + + 424 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + 425 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + BM7 7 the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + + + + 426 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + BM8 8 conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + + + + 427 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + BM9 9 KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + + + + 428 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + BM10 10 releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + + + + 429 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + BM13 13 KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + + + + 430 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + BM15 15 KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + + + + 431 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + BM17 17 incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + + + + 432 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + BM19 19 produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + + + + 433 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + + + 434 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + All the investments are related to deliverables identified in terms of content, quality + and deadline in the Deliverable Traceability Matrix. A number of KPIs are + STRICTLY related to the monitoring of these investments/deliverables that are + produced by the WP2 to WP12. + As presented in the annexed figure WP1.2, the objectives of this WP are + numerous, have different periodicity and involve different project stakeholders. + IT Software Development Life Cycle events and researchers/IT engineers + incidents management is monitored weekly within each WP + For incident management + KPI 1.1: Incident acknowledgement time + KPI 1.2: Incident intervention time + KPI 1.3: Incident Resolution time + The targets are defined in Annex 1 - Figure WP1.7. + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.4: Number of release back-outs: Based on the release data available; Zero + releases + KPI 1.5: Number of defects in release/change in PRD - Incidents caused by new + releases: Based on the total number of new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged + in defect management tool during the period; The number of defects in a release in + PRODUCTION should not exceed the following threshold: zero Blocking, 1 + Major, 5 Minor + KPI 1.6: Defects not found during test execution in non-PRODUCTION : + Analysis of all new Blocking, Major, Minor defects logged in defect management + tool in the PRODUCTION environment which had no record for the tests + conducted in non- PRODUCTION environments; No new defects should be + found in PRODUCTION + KPI 1.7: Test execution coverage: Total number of executed test cases by the total + number of test cases planned to be executed (%). Information to be gathered from + the Test Management tool; 100% of planned test cases are executed + BM21 21 Deliverables quality, deadlines and services levels performance are monitored + monthly by the IM, the Team Leaders and the WP leaders + KPI 1.8: Compliance with delivery dates agreed in the Deliverable Tracking Matrix + (DTM): number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and + the expected due date of the deliverable; Target: max. 5 working days + KPI 1.9: Compliance with the expected content of the deliverables as agreed in the + (DTM): Number of reports not meeting the content requirements; Target: 1max. + non-compliance/month + KPI 1.10: Compliance with agreed planned activities: Number of activities that + deviate from the agreed set of activities; max. 2/month + KPI 1.11: Delay in successful implementation of corrective action plan following + quality audits: Number of working days of delay beyond expected implementation; + Target: zero working days + KPI 1.12: # incident report due to quality issues with a deliverables: Number of + deliverables not meeting the requirements defined in the DOP/QAP/SMP/CDP; + Target: max. 1/month + For IT Software Development Life Cycle events + KPI 1.13: Implementation of updates to Configuration Management DataBase + (CMDB) arising out of change management process: Based on data available in + CMDB for every Configuration Item that required to be updated; Target: One + item per month not kept up-to-date within 10 working days of change being made + KPI 1.14: Number of Knowledge Management (KM) artefacts with an expired + review date: Date of last update (based on document control information) + uploaded against data of latest upload version; Target: Zero (0) deviations + The contractual duties are monitored bimonthly by the Board: + KPI 1.15: Compliance with the delivery date of the bi-monthly progress report: + number of elapsed working days between the effective delivery date and the + expected due date of the report; Target: max. 1 working day + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + + + + 435 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + KPI 1.16: Compliance with the expected content of the bi-monthly progress + report: Number of report not meeting the content requirements; Target: Zero + non-compliance + KPI 1.17: Quality of the Financial report (including invoicing, evidences, etc.) + submitted to the Ministry: Numberof report not meeting the content requirements; + Target: Zero non-compliance + + + 46 WP Intermediate Objectives: + + IO Title BM1 + + IO Bimestre 1 IO Costs 225.784,62 + + IO Desciption + Documents delivered + + IO Title BM2 + + IO Bimestre 2 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM3 + + IO Bimestre 3 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM4 + + IO Bimestre 4 IO Costs 293.681,45 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM5 + + IO Bimestre 5 IO Costs 255.054,54 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + + + 436 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM6 + + IO Bimestre 6 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM7 + + IO Bimestre 7 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM8 + + IO Bimestre 8 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report deilvered + + IO Title BM9 + + IO Bimestre 9 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM10 + + IO Bimestre 10 IO Costs 216.427,60 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered,WPs Quality Audit meeting + + IO Title BM13 + + IO Bimestre 13 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + + + + + 437 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Report delivered; WPs Security Audit meeting + + IO Title BM15 + + IO Bimestre 15 IO Costs 216.427,63 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM17 + + IO Bimestre 17 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered + + IO Title BM19 + + IO Bimestre 19 IO Costs 271.638,34 + + IO Desciption + Report delivered; WPs Quality Audit; ; WPs Security Audit + + IO Title BM21 + + IO Bimestre 21 IO Costs 204.662,23 + + IO Desciption + Reports delivered + + + 47 WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Infrastructure manager, Finance and Administration Managers, Communication + Manager, Impact Manager, Training Manager + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer; + licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 438 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Long-term rentals and civil infrastructure + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the + project; project management training; language courses + + 48 Activity title + Governance set-up + 49 Activity short name + 1.1 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 2 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, the Infrastructure Manager (IM) will lead the management of the following activities: + ●Organisation of the Kick-off event + ●Creation of the management plans necessary to govern the Research Infrastructure: DOP(See D1.1), QAP(See D1.2), CDP (See + D1.3) and SMP(See D1.5) + ●Set-up of the entire management and governance structure of ITSERR and its implementation. + ●Organisation of WP Staff Trainings: Knowledge Transfer (ca. #10 trainings foreseen) from innovation and High-Tech market leaders + achieved by providing training on various innovation related topics such as Design Thinking and Innovation Organisation Design for + WP Leaders, Artificial Intelligence, etc.; + ●Synchronisation with RESILIENCE: the RESILIENCE CEO participates in the Board as the responsible person for full- + synchronisation with the RI strengthened by ITSERR and its partners. Effectively, the timing of both projects allows a strategic + allocation of resources and mutual benefit and this task is to always make sure that the added-value created by ITSERR converges in the + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + + + + 439 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + + RESILIENCE ecosystem; + ●Creation of a Welcome Pack for new joiners: each new ITSERR member will receive a series of inception training elements to accelerate + their learning-curve, with a set of artefacts (such as documents, slide-decks, webinar, live Q/A sessions, forum with FAQ, etc.) based on + controlled documentation. + ●Definition of the sustainability of the project beyond the 30 months of duration of the project; + ●Closure event: aside the event that will happen not later than 31/12/2025, the intention of ITSERR management is to : + ○Submit the Closure Report (D1.7) ensuring that all lessons learned are collected and shared globally within the ITSERR ecosystem; + ○Ensure that the artefacts of the project will be sustained and maintained during 10 years after the end of the project. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 6.776,64 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 69.495,00 € + + Cost description: Software development team leading, quality assurance manager, security officer + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 5.339,01 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Monitoring + 49 Activity short name + + + + + 440 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 1.2 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + During this activity, all project and WP managers and leaders will perform the following management activities: + ●Daily stand-up: Each working day at 9AM,the WP leader organises with all the WP team a stand-up meeting of 15 to 30 minutes + to review the backlog of tickets/work requests. + + ●Weekly monitoring: the Team Leaders, WP Leaders and Impact Officer participate in a weekly meeting to follow up on WP activities. + For Incident Management, focus will be on avoiding new occurrences and handling critical incidents. They also ensure that the project + Knowledge Management System is kept up-to-date. + ●Cross-project follow-up: The Infrastructure and team Leaders will ensure that cross-pollination does occur between the different teams, + that synergies are favoured and avoidance of re-doing the same activity twices. + ●Monthly Steering Committee and Continuous Improvement Meeting: The Scientific Coordinator, The Infrastructure Manager, the + Team Leaders, the WP Leaders, The Quality Manager and the Security Officer gather once per month to evaluate the progress of the + contract towards the strategic objectives and take strategic decisions, + ●HR Monitoring reviews and realigns the needs of project resources + ●Impact Monitoring: impact is part of Project Management as it is intended to monitor and measure the performance of the project in the + short term and the consequences its outcomes produce in the long term. + ●Scientific coordination: as an infrastructure mainly stemming from research issues coming from Religious Studies, ITSERR requires a + strong and high-profile scientific coordination. + ●Quality Assurance activities performed by the Quality Assurance Manager who is accountable for the Quality Assurance of the project + and respond to the Infrastructure Manager + ●Security Mgt/Monitoring activities are performed under the responsibilities of the Security Officer who is accountable for the overall + Security Monitoring of the project and responds to the IM + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 199.473,36 € + + Cost description: Infrastructure Manager + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 1.553.172,50 € + + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + + + + 441 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 122.685,21 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.3 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Consiglio Nazionale delle + OU short name 1 Participant + Ricerche + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + + + 442 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 43.500,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 97.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 9.835,00 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + + + 443 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.6 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università di Napoli + OU short name 4 Participant + L’Orientale + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + + + + + 444 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 58.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Civil infrastructure + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 7.568,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.4 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli studi di + OU short name 2 Participant + Modena e Reggio Emilia + + + + + 445 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 244.125,00 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 197.500,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational Access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 446 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 34.413,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 50.000,00 € + + Cost description: Anti-Laundering and other legal training for the personnel involved in the project; project management training; + language courses + 48 Activity title + Finance, Administration and Human Resources Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.5 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 1 Activity Duration 42 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + This activity covers the following activities: + ●For financial aspects at least: + ○Collect budgetary requirements from all contract participants + ○Verifies the budgetary constraints of the WPs and the contract + ○Ensure the respects of the financial constraints of the PNRR context + ○Perform and monitor invoicing and payments + ●For administrative aspects at least: + ○Contact office for contract administration, ensuring centralised reachability via various communication channels, e.g. e–mail, telephone, + fax and post + ○Supports the Financial Officer in contract administration matters + ○Centralises and documents communication concerning the contract + ○Supports the Infrastructure Manager in the preparation of contract reports + ○Administrative management and follow–up of administrative requests + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the gathering and control of the timesheets + ●For Human Resources management aspects at least: + ○Perform human resource management activities, including contract management, salaries, holiday requests, etc. + ○Recruitment strategy targeting EXCELLENCE (See WP Summary of activities description) + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + + + + 447 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ○Manage and maintain a network of ICT freelancers + ○Lead the recruitment process for new resources, including the pre-analysis of CVs, organisation of interviews, and finalisation of + employment contract + ○Support the Infrastructure Manager in the Contract Capacity (Resources) Management + To ensure the full respect of regulatory obligations (i.e. accounting codification, etc.) from an accounting-administrative point of view, the + proponent is equipped with computerised recording and storage system of accounting data through which it is possible to obtain both prints + and data extractions for the contract activities since the first day. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 177.978,41 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 150.000,00 € + + Cost description: Long term rental + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 18.758,49 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Impact Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.7 + + + + 448 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 25 Activity Duration 18 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + RESILIENCE already developed an in-depth socio-economic ex ante impact study. This activity acts as a cooperative transversal and + localised activity with all other WPs to develop an impact measurement methodology to identify, evaluate and quantify ITSERR impact + in the long term in its different areas of actions. + The impact ITSERR wants to have on Economy and Innovation is detailed in Annex B Section C, Article “Project framework and + main expected impact” and covers the impact on the territory (i.e. by opting for a 50/50 distribution of the budget between North/South + Italy), on business (i.e. by transforming research and prototypes into usable products), on methodologies (i.e. by introducing significant + innovations in the research of the Religious Studies); on inclusivity (i.e. by supporting the availability of multilingual (meta)data to be + inclusive when language-barriers prevent users from accessing resources within the European Research Area); on Public and Private + institutions (i.e. by providing the opportunity to decrease the dispersion of funding allocated to individual small-scale infrastructural + components and smaller projects) and on Green options (i.e. by reducing the costs dedicated to some aspects of the research through + increased accessibility to resources as well as technical solutions to boost research performance) + To that scope, the task participants: + ●Adopt RESILIENCE impact measurement framework (See Deliverable 1.4)and detail it according to the Italian context and + ITSERR project + ●are involved in the activities of all other WPs to ensure the best insight on the work they conduct + ●define how to specify and measure the impact of the WPs and ITSERR outcomes in quantitative and qualitative terms + ●elaborate an impact assessment based on the RIs’ Impact Assessment Toolkit which identifies the impact indicators for + RESILIENCE and particularly evaluates the impact of RESILIENCE on research, citizens and the different local and national + contexts. + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 124.796,37 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + 449 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.835,75 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Communication Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.8 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 2 Activity Duration 41 + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the RESILIENCE Communication and Dissemination Plan (CDP) (See Deliverable 1.3), we will produce a CDP + fully customised for the requirements and the national specificities of the ITSERR project. Moving from the latest version of the + RESILIENCE C&D Plan, the team will : + ●define a differentiated strategy to reach out to the ITSERR users archetypes and especially to scholars + ●consult with institutions that already developed best practises in the field of communicating religious related topics (e.g. curators of + religious heritage) + ●exploit the network of the ReIReS TNA grantholders to gain insights on how to (better) communicate the results of the ITSERR + TNA Programme + ●Create and implement the ITSERR CDP + ●develop new or updated communication means + ●facilitate, stimulate and monitor the CDP activities + + + + 450 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + ●elaborate a green approach to communication meetings, ensuring alternatives to physical meetings (which are also more financially + sustainable). + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 93.036,64 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 10.012,56 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 48 Activity title + Training Management + 49 Activity short name + 1.9 + 50 Activity Start month and duration + + Activity Start month 4 Activity Duration 39 + + + + + 451 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 51 OU in charge of the Activity + + Università degli Studi di + OU short name 5 Participant + Palermo + + 52 Activity description + Starting from the experience gained and materials provided by the ReIReS trainings and RESILIENCE training services, ITSERR + management team will analyse the training resources (people, procedures, skills, tools, etc.) necessary to create a ITSERR training + framework allowing the later establishment of future training programmes, providing tools and methods to support researchers in using + RESILIENCE services and/or even creating their own training materials. + + The team will define models of training to be provided by ITSERR and will provide guidelines for the partners involved in training + activities and contains: + ●ITSERR the training requirements, + ●Training implementation guidelines + ●A traceability matrix between training activities and ITSERR staff needs in correlation with the objectives of the RI. + ●a series of templates to be used by the partners for the design, implementation and evaluation of the trainings + 54 Activity budget + 54.1 a. Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + 41.599,49 € + + Cost description: Administrative personnel + 54.2 b. Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.3 c. Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + 195.000,00 € + + Cost description: Transnational access, FAIRification + 54.4 d. Civil infrastructures and related systems + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + 54.5 e. Indirect costs + 15.161,96 € + + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + 54.6 f. Training activities + + + + 452 /453 + d) PROJECT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - [1 - Project and Impact Management] +(The information provided in this section will be evaluated with reference to criteria C1-C5) + + 54.6 f. Training activities + 0,00 € + + Cost description: - + + + + + 453 /453 + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_subtotali.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_subtotali.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7cd473e --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_subtotali.txt @@ -0,0 +1,761 @@ + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [3 - T-ReS - Toolkit for Religious Studies] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 465.000,00 296.387,44 761.387,44 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 1.820.013,00 169.602,09 1.989.615,09 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 177.255,46 40.091,77 217.347,23 + costs + +f. Training activities 247.207,91 106.750,00 353.957,91 + +Total 2.709.476,37 612.831,30 3.322.307,67 + + + + + 63 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 64 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [2 - Data Centre Services] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 0,00 0,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 1.680.444,40 0,00 1.680.444,40 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 117.631,11 0,00 117.631,11 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 1.798.075,51 0,00 1.798.075,51 + + + + + 65 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 66 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [12 - Data Management Services] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 0,00 0,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 312.197,40 0,00 312.197,40 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 21.853,82 0,00 21.853,82 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 334.051,22 0,00 334.051,22 + + + + + 67 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Nessuno + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 68 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [4 - DaMSym - Data Mining: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbolum] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 277.500,00 110.412,56 387.912,56 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 984.250,04 142.197,09 1.126.447,13 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 102.477,04 33.524,38 136.001,42 + costs + +f. Training activities 247.207,91 226.310,00 473.517,91 + +Total 1.611.434,99 512.444,03 2.123.879,02 + + + + + 69 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 70 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [5 - Digital Maktaba] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 151.250,00 203.400,00 354.650,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 367.425,00 1.214.824,84 1.582.249,84 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 42.509,52 119.302,04 161.811,56 + costs + +f. Training activities 123.603,96 286.090,00 409.693,96 + +Total 684.788,48 1.823.616,88 2.508.405,36 + + + + + 71 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 72 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [6 - YASMINE - Yet Another visual-Semantic Metascraper for Intelligent kNowledge + Extraction] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 152.500,00 324.300,00 476.800,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 643.735,50 357.644,84 1.001.380,34 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 65.662,62 88.685,44 154.348,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,98 584.990,00 646.791,98 + +Total 923.700,10 1.355.620,28 2.279.320,38 + + + + + 73 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 74 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [7 - REVER - REVErse Regesta] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 203.400,00 435.900,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 183.712,50 653.784,59 837.497,09 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 33.461,01 67.475,42 100.936,43 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,98 106.750,00 168.551,98 + +Total 511.475,49 1.031.410,01 1.542.885,50 + + + + + 75 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 76 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [8 - uBIQUity] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 348.750,00 82.500,00 431.250,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 265.995,00 574.847,07 840.842,07 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 47.358,29 53.486,79 100.845,08 + costs + +f. Training activities 61.801,94 106.750,00 168.551,94 + +Total 723.905,23 817.583,86 1.541.489,09 + + + + + 77 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 78 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [9 - TAURUS – Toolkit for Analysis and visUalisation for aRchaeology and religioUs Studies] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 0,00 232.500,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 735.000,00 735.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 0,00 74.961,25 74.961,25 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 53.375,00 53.375,00 + +Total 0,00 1.145.836,25 1.145.836,25 + + + + + 79 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 80 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [10 - ReTINA: Religious Texts In the Nile vAlley and Beyond] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 232.500,00 0,00 232.500,00 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 875.000,00 0,00 875.000,00 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 50.000,00 0,00 50.000,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 88.497,50 0,00 88.497,50 + costs + +f. Training activities 106.750,00 0,00 106.750,00 + +Total 1.352.747,50 0,00 1.352.747,50 + + + + + 81 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Temporary research personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Software analysis, development, test and operations; licenses; hardware; cloud storage and + services + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Trans-National Access activities and management. FAIRification of data + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Costs covering public universities' temporary research personnel costs and PhD scholarships + not included in item (a); Consumables, participation to events, dissemination, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: PhD scholarships + + + + + 82 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [11 - Trans-National Access] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 124.089,09 0,00 124.089,09 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 470.568,96 0,00 470.568,96 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 0,00 0,00 0,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 0,00 0,00 0,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 41.626,06 0,00 41.626,06 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 0,00 0,00 + +Total 636.284,11 0,00 636.284,11 + + + + + 83 / 453 + WP budget description + + Cost of fixed term personnel specifically hired for the project + Cost description: Fixed-term personnel + + Scientific instrumentation and technological equipment, software licenses and patent + Cost description: Technical equipment and software licences to allow Trans-National Access operations and + research + + Open Access, Transnational Access, FAIR principle implementation + Cost description: Nessuno + + Civil infrastructures and related systems + Cost description: Nessuno + + Indirect costs + Cost description: Consumables, events, dissemination, communication, travels + + Training activities + Cost description: Nessuno + + + + + 84 / 453 + 32.2 For each Work Package (Specific Objective), as per the following table + COSTS (€) + WORK PACKAGE [1 - Project and Impact Management] + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + +a. Fixed term + personnel 495.535,91 493.875,00 989.410,91 + specifically hired for + the project + +b. Scientific + instrumentation and + technological 0,00 1.622.667,50 1.622.667,50 + equipment, software + licenses and patent + +c. Open Access, Trans + National Access, 195.000,00 294.500,00 489.500,00 + FAI principal + implementation + +d. Civil infrastructures 200.000,00 0,00 200.000,00 + and related systems + +e. Indirect costs, + including running 62.337,51 172.272,97 234.610,48 + costs + +f. Training activities 0,00 50.000,00 50.000,00 + +Total 952.873,42 2.633.315,47 3.586.188,89 + + + diff --git a/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_totali.txt b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_totali.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..78e3a68 --- /dev/null +++ b/01_lavori_in_corso/budget/WPs_totali.txt @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ + + + 32 Total budget for the proposal + +32.1 Entire project costs + COSTS (€) + ENTIRE PROJECT + + Costs included in the request for funding + + To be located within the To be located outside the Total requested grant + eight southern Regions eight southern Regions + + a. Fixed term + personnel 2.479.625,00 1.946.775,00 4.426.400,00 + specifically hired + for the project + + b. Scientific + instrumentation + and technological 7.603.341,80 5.470.568,02 13.073.909,82 + equipment, + software licenses + and patent + + c. Open Access, + Trans National + Access, FAIR 245.000,00 344.500,00 589.500,00 + principle + implementation + + d. Civil infrastructures 200.000,00 0,00 200.000,00 + and related systems + + e. Indirect costs, + including running 800.669,94 649.800,06 1.450.470,00 + costs + + f. Training activities 910.175,68 1.521.015,00 2.431.190,68 + + Total 12.238.812,42 9.932.658,08 22.171.470,50 + + +