Difference between revisions of "Wg1 workplan"
Ola Eriksson (Talk | contribs) (→Activities and Outputs) |
Ola Eriksson (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Work Program 2010 == | ==Work Program 2010 == | ||
=== Activities and Outputs === | === Activities and Outputs === | ||
| − | + | * WG1 now holds 25 participants from 15 countries. | |
| − | * | + | * The population of forest DSSs on the wiki has increased from 42 in 2009 to 58. |
| − | * | + | * The wiki has established itself as an important repository for forest DSS; it is the 2nd link on Google and the 4th on Bing when searching for Forest Decision Support Systems. |
| − | * | + | * WG1 topics covered at the Lisbon workshop. |
| − | * | + | * WG1 session at Brussels meeting. |
| − | ==== | + | ==Work Program 2011 == |
| − | + | === Activities and Outputs === | |
| − | + | 1. Contact person for each DSS presented in the WIKI – possibility to ask questions about the content of a DSS-article: The responsible people for the country reports should determine a contact person for each DSS related to their country and presented on the WIKI. The contact person should be mentioned with e-mail at the very beginning of the WIKI-article. The contact person should be able to answer questions that readers might ask. | |
| − | + | 2. Problem dimensions as categories in the WIKI – basis for determining the main utility of a DSS: The responsible person for the country reports should also ensure that each DSS is described in the WIKI by in categories according to the problem dimensions. These dimensions build the basis for determining the problem types (see: http://fp0804.emu.ee/wiki/index.php/Guidelines). A WIKI-page should be dedicated to these particular categories, and at least a list of the dimensions should be produced, e.g., copy and paste them. The description of these dimensions should be kept up-to-date with the results from the discussions held in Brussels. | |
| + | 3. Categories in the WIKI – basis for the search of a particular DSS: A curation of the categories is necessary (e.g., singular / plural). Guidelines should be determined preliminarily (e.g., solely the use of singular) and highlighted in the WIKI. WG1 organises this curation in collaboration with the other WGs, as well as with the STC. In a first step, only formal guidelines will be produced. | ||
| + | 4. Glossary – basis for common understanding: Among all categories available, priorities for descriptions should be set (e.g., must, wish, could). Descriptions already available should be taken into account (review of available glossaries – STSM ?). At the end, the user should be able to easily print the list of categories / terms with their descriptions (e.g., with one click – currently, there is one page per category). (semantic WIKI – work for a STSM ?) | ||
| + | 5. Check-list – basis for checking the completeness of the DSS articles: A list of necessary information on DSSs should be produced (see the example sent by Jussi – result from WG1 work in Brussels on DSS development and architecture). This list should inform the authors about the aspects of a DSS that are considered important (e.g., focused writing, check if something is missing). This list is the basis for the selection of the case studies. It is also an important basis for producing guidelines. The list should be as simple as possible, including priorities (i.e., must – what is essential, wish - what helps to better understand the DSS?, could – nice to have?), focusing on the essentials, and not overloading the work of the authors. The problem dimensions already represent a part of this check-list (related to the utility of DSS to solve particular problems). For example, information about the tool itself (development and architecture, prototype or product, concrete utilisation) and the role of the stakeholders should also be a part of the check-list. | ||
| + | 6. Template – structuring the information about DSSs: Based on the check-list, a new version of the template should be produced in order to simplify the comparability of the DSS-articles and the search for information. The template is only a suggestion; it should be as simple as possible, without too much detail (1st, eventually 2nd level chapter). | ||
| + | 7. Evaluation criteria to select the case studies: Based on the previous steps | ||
| + | |||
| + | Deadlines: | ||
| + | 1+2 - End of January; country report responsible | ||
| + | 3-7 - End of March for a first simple curation based on formal rules / End of 2011 considering STSM and WG1 in collaboration with the other WGs and the STC | ||
Revision as of 09:35, 7 January 2011
Contents
Working Group 1 - main objectives
WG 1 deals with decision support system (DSS) architecture and application. The work will result in reports on guidelines for good practices to assist overall system design, quality control, integration, sharing, and use. It focuses on conceptual design and architectures to build a decision support system. WG 1 addresses innovative ways of linking processes for data extraction from forest inventory and monitoring systems, and forest multi resource projection models with decision support methodologies. It also focuses on innovative interfaces between inference system modules and end-users. Thus, this task cuts across the work of the other three WGs.
Work Program 2009
Activities and Outputs
- WG1 established: 26 participants from 15 countries.
- A dynamic repository of forest management DSSs has been started as a wiki:
- A reference document with requirements for documenting Forest DSSs has been produced.
- A detailed user's manual has been produced with guides, templates and examples.
- It is being populated – 42 Forest DSSs introduced.
- Categories are being defined dynamically.
- The wiki is also used as a repository for an ontology.
- WG1 sessions at Riga meeting.
Work Program 2010
Activities and Outputs
- WG1 now holds 25 participants from 15 countries.
- The population of forest DSSs on the wiki has increased from 42 in 2009 to 58.
- The wiki has established itself as an important repository for forest DSS; it is the 2nd link on Google and the 4th on Bing when searching for Forest Decision Support Systems.
- WG1 topics covered at the Lisbon workshop.
- WG1 session at Brussels meeting.
Work Program 2011
Activities and Outputs
1. Contact person for each DSS presented in the WIKI – possibility to ask questions about the content of a DSS-article: The responsible people for the country reports should determine a contact person for each DSS related to their country and presented on the WIKI. The contact person should be mentioned with e-mail at the very beginning of the WIKI-article. The contact person should be able to answer questions that readers might ask. 2. Problem dimensions as categories in the WIKI – basis for determining the main utility of a DSS: The responsible person for the country reports should also ensure that each DSS is described in the WIKI by in categories according to the problem dimensions. These dimensions build the basis for determining the problem types (see: http://fp0804.emu.ee/wiki/index.php/Guidelines). A WIKI-page should be dedicated to these particular categories, and at least a list of the dimensions should be produced, e.g., copy and paste them. The description of these dimensions should be kept up-to-date with the results from the discussions held in Brussels. 3. Categories in the WIKI – basis for the search of a particular DSS: A curation of the categories is necessary (e.g., singular / plural). Guidelines should be determined preliminarily (e.g., solely the use of singular) and highlighted in the WIKI. WG1 organises this curation in collaboration with the other WGs, as well as with the STC. In a first step, only formal guidelines will be produced. 4. Glossary – basis for common understanding: Among all categories available, priorities for descriptions should be set (e.g., must, wish, could). Descriptions already available should be taken into account (review of available glossaries – STSM ?). At the end, the user should be able to easily print the list of categories / terms with their descriptions (e.g., with one click – currently, there is one page per category). (semantic WIKI – work for a STSM ?) 5. Check-list – basis for checking the completeness of the DSS articles: A list of necessary information on DSSs should be produced (see the example sent by Jussi – result from WG1 work in Brussels on DSS development and architecture). This list should inform the authors about the aspects of a DSS that are considered important (e.g., focused writing, check if something is missing). This list is the basis for the selection of the case studies. It is also an important basis for producing guidelines. The list should be as simple as possible, including priorities (i.e., must – what is essential, wish - what helps to better understand the DSS?, could – nice to have?), focusing on the essentials, and not overloading the work of the authors. The problem dimensions already represent a part of this check-list (related to the utility of DSS to solve particular problems). For example, information about the tool itself (development and architecture, prototype or product, concrete utilisation) and the role of the stakeholders should also be a part of the check-list. 6. Template – structuring the information about DSSs: Based on the check-list, a new version of the template should be produced in order to simplify the comparability of the DSS-articles and the search for information. The template is only a suggestion; it should be as simple as possible, without too much detail (1st, eventually 2nd level chapter). 7. Evaluation criteria to select the case studies: Based on the previous steps
Deadlines: 1+2 - End of January; country report responsible 3-7 - End of March for a first simple curation based on formal rules / End of 2011 considering STSM and WG1 in collaboration with the other WGs and the STC
