IST PROJECT QUESTION-HOW (IST-2000-28767)
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW REPORT
Reviewer: Liviu Badea
Project title: Quality Engineering Solutions via Tools, Information and
Outreach for the New Highly-enriched Offerings from W3C: Evolving the Web
in Europe (QUESTION-HOW)
Project summary: QUESTION-HOW aims at contributing toward an environment
for European companies to take decisions with respect to the emerging
specifications from the W3C. This is to be supported not only by developing
new tools, but also by improving the outreach of the W3C and enlarging the
set of European offices of the W3C.
Review venue, date: Brussels September 16, 2003
Attendees:
Consortium
Stefano Bocconi CWI
Klaus Birkenbihl FhG
Vivek Gupta FhG
Jacco v. Ossenbruggen CWI
Marie-Claire Forgue W3C, Sophia Antipolis
Olle Olson SICS
Michael Wilson CCLRC
Oreste Signore CNR
Michel Bercovier Hebrew University
Evangelos Markatos FORTH
Manos Moschous FORTH
Daniel Dardailler W3C, Sophia Antipolis
Ivan Herman W3C, Sophia Antipolis
Reviewers
Liviu Badea National Institute for Research and Development in
Informatics
EC Project Officer
Michel Lacroix EC, Information Society Directorate
General
standing in for Vassilis Kopanas, DG INFSO D3
1. Introduction
The timely supply of the deliverables, as well as the presentation at the
review meeting of the most significant aspects and achievements of the
project allowed a well-informed evaluation of the project. The main
problems raised during the first review (some late deliverables and the
limited impact due to the choice of the W3C platform of development for
demonstrators) were solved. The technical work was according to the project
workplan and impressive in certain aspects.
2. Presentations and Demonstrations
The following presentations and demonstrations were made during the review:
W3C and QH Overview by Daniel Dardailler, W3C Associate Chairman
Selection of Technical work presentation (with demos) by W3C and Offices
Technical Staff:
Multiple DB access using SW and WS technology Michael Wilson, RAL
XForms tools Michel Bercovier, HUJI
CC/PP module Evangelos Markatos, FORTH
XML/RDF Digital library Oreste Signore, CNR
Simultaneous Visual and Audio Communication Klaus Birkenbihl, Vivek Gupta,
FhG
RDF annotation in SMIL Jacco v. Ossenbruggen, CWI
New W3C offices and dissemination
Presentation of new W3C Office in Europe by Ivan Herman, Head of W3C
Offices
Dissemination Materials by Michael Wilson Manager of W3C Office in the UK
W3C Semantic Tour by Marie-Claire Forgue, W3C Europe Communications Officer
3. Project progress
3.1 Achievements and deviations
The project is on time with all due deliverables, with the exception of the
creation of a fourth W3C office in Central Europe. The creation of a fourth
new W3C office was not possible despite the best efforts of the consortium.
The reasons invoked for this deviation from the original workplan are
reasonable, but it is important that this activity be continued after the
end of the project despite the difficulties faced.
The sub-deliverables that were late in the first project phase (first
year) were completed.
The Semantic Web Tour involving events in 5 major European cities was very
useful for raising the awareness of the web community and industry towards
the technological breakthroughs to be brought about by the Semantic Web.
The achievements are presented in a clear manner and are significant with
respect to the state of the art.
3.2 Progress in exploitation issues
Exploitation and dissemination have been done according to plan. The
Semantic Web Tour was especially important from the point of view of
dissemination, even more so than last year's Interop tour, especially since
it dealt with introducing the Semantic Web technology to the Web community
and industry.
This project is also very important from the point of view of
standardization of the Web, for which the W3C recommendations are crucial
and cannot be underestimated.
3.3 Project management activity assessment
The management of the project is professional, the consortium showing that
it is effectively working together as a team.
3.4 Result/effort ratio assessment
The result/effort ratio is acceptable, especially due to the importance of
the technology developed by the project as well as to the impact of the W3C
recommendations on the industry. The complexity of the deliverables in the
second year has also increased as compared to those for the first year of
the project.
4. Strong aspects in project implementation
The main strengths of the project are the following:
The issues covered are very relevant for the industry.
The project is impressively wide in scope covering not just technical
improvements to Web-related technology, but dealing also with outreach and
dissemination.
As mentioned previously, the consortium is working effectively together (as
a team).
The regionalization issues were taken care of professionally, the main goal
being maximizing outreach and stability of the network of W3C European
offices. Thus, the quality of the new W3C offices has not been sacrificed
for the sake of having a larger number of such offices.
The deliverables regarding "Simultaneous Visual and Audio Communication"
and "RDF annotation in SMIL" are impressive.
5. Problem areas identified
The main problems identified were the following:
Although problems were faced in opening a new office in Central Europe,
efforts should be made for this to be achieved even after the completion of
the project.
Some of the documents describing the deliverables are very concise,
sometimes up to the point that a complete understanding of the technical
work is very difficult just on the basis of these deliverables. The
presentations at the review meeting clarified most of these details and
should be made available on the Web.
6. Project deliverables
All the due deliverables have been produced, but the presentations made at
the review meeting should be made available as well, as they complement in
a useful manner the existing deliverables (some of which are very concise).
7. Conclusions and recommendations
The overall evaluation of the project is positive. Some of the results are
impressive and their exploitation should be attempted even after the
completion of the project.
ANNEX List of project documents consulted
D7.3 and D7.4 Periodic Progress Reports 3 and 4
D1.2 XSL-XPath Test environment
D1.5 Extensions of RDFSuite
D1.6 Using RDF to query multiple SQL databases
D2.2 Namespace-aware SVG validator
D2.2 Collaborative Interactive Web Editing Tool
D2.2 QA Log Validator
D2.3 Manual to Edit the QA Matrix
D2.3 P3P Preference Manager
D2.3 Demonstration: Accessing Multiple Databases using Semantic Web
Technology
D2.3 XML/RDF Digital Library
D2.4 Automatic Inclusion of RDF Annotations in SMIL 2.0
D2.4 Mapping of Complex Forms, XForm Validator
D2.5 CC/PP Module in Apache
D2.5 SiVACoW - Simultaneous Visual and Audio Communication on the Web
D4.3 New Offices, 2nd Phase
D5.1 Presentations of W3C Web Technology
D5.2 Handouts for W3C Web Technology
D5.3 Stand Decorations for W3C Web Technology
D5.4 Demonstrations of W3C Web Technology
Signed for approval
|Name |Signature |Date |
|Liviu Badea |signed |September 19, |
| | |2003 |