Difference between revisions of "Lessons Group Workplan 2013"
From COST Action FP0804: FORSYS
(→How should this work be organized and how should we work with the other groups?) |
(→Recruit Interest in Group) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Recruit Interest in Group== | ==Recruit Interest in Group== | ||
| − | * How do we get more people to contribute (should we scan recent PhD graduates to contribute their cases?) | + | * How do we get more people to contribute (Luc: should we scan recent PhD graduates to contribute their cases? Who would be in a good position to do so?) |
==Consider how people will use lessons== | ==Consider how people will use lessons== | ||
Revision as of 14:05, 19 August 2013
Contents
Import Other Existing Lessons to Wiki
Empirical Survey
- Make titles and properties consistent with case lessons
- Other things we need to do?
Country Studies
- Make titles and properties consistent with case lessons
- Other things we need to do?
Update Case Lessons
- Many are rather thin, ask contacts to add more information
Recruit Interest in Group
- How do we get more people to contribute (Luc: should we scan recent PhD graduates to contribute their cases? Who would be in a good position to do so?)
Consider how people will use lessons
- How will people want to access lessons? By actor role, DSS development stage, modeling approach, ?
- Add queries to FAQ to provide access
How should this work be organized and how should we work with the other groups?
- Most of the others are thematically based (the WGs) while cases/lessons are particular products
- What will motivate us to carry on?
- Luc: I am proposing in Cost Action Orchestra the development of a concept map as basis for semantic wiki on concepts and theoretical perspectives on forest policy. Policy tools and games will be some of these concepts. Hope to relate to the semantic understanding in FORSYS and possible expand the audience for the FORSYS wiki.
