TEL Management Committee
thDDB, Frankfurt – January 14 2002
R Smith (Chair)
P Dale (Minutes)
M de Niet
G van Trier
Approval of Agenda
1. RS welcomed everyone, thanking the Deutsche Bibliothek for hosting the meeting. The
agenda was approved with the addition of two items - use of resources so far in the project; and issues
to be raised with the Steering Committee.
Minutes of last meeting
2. From the minutes of the previous meeting it was agreed that the wording of 7.2 should be
amended to read “prefer to keep it local” and at 7.12 it was explained by JH that “we are negotiating
with Ex-Libris, and the licence price is to be based on the size of the user community”. Negotiations
are also taking place with Encompass. One of these suppliers will be chosen by the end of January. The
licensing problems that exist mainly arise as a result of the TEL perspective (unsure of the size of the
user community, and taking account of the trans-national aspect of the service)
Matters arising 3. Actions from the previous minutes:
It was explained that budget re-allocations (notably extra funds to DDB for dissemination costs) would
happen as part of the Technical Annexe revision.
There was a discussion about the inclusion of non-costed work in Management Reports. At present
DDB are the only partner who specifically include this work. It was agreed that in future there was no
need to do this in the MRs, but that partners should take care to keep records of such work in case of a
From 8.2 it was agreed that PD should remind partners that they should be constantly monitoring
potentially relevant websites in their own countries.
The Consortium Agreement was discussed. PD explained that he had a model for this, but that other
activities had precluded further work on the CA since the last meeting. It was noted that the Steering
Committee had agreed that the CA would apply retrospectively to Day 1 of the project, irrespective of
the date on which a final text for the CA was actually agreed.
First Peer Review 4. The discussion then addressed the October Peer Review. This had resulted in three reports - an
“on the day” summary prepared by the EC, and two separate individual reviews. The Management
Committee focused its attention on the EC's summary while picking up some of the specific
recommendations made by the two reviewers.
4.1 The Technical Annex was being rewritten following the Peer Review. Workpackage leaders
were reviewing the milestones in the Description of Work and would amend as necessary.
[Action: WorkPackage Leaders to review and amend as necessary the milestones in the Description of
Work for their own WorkPackages]
4.2 MdN raised the matter of quality control. It had been agreed that the Management Committee should exercise final sign-off for deliverables following the quality control procedures set out in the Project Handbook. The Handbook has not been complied with in all cases and PD was asked to extract the relevant instructions and re-circulate these to the participants.
[Action: PD to circulate instructions re quality control]
4.3 MdN also mentioned the fact that all Deliverables were considered to be of draft status until the end of the project, even when they were officially scheduled to be delivered at an earlier date. It was mentioned that Section 6.7 in the Project Handbook refers to this. CB pointed out that in view of the stated dependencies in the WP Work Plans it was important in the interest of progress that Deliverables should be finalised on the due date. It was agreed that PD would amend the Handbook accordingly.
[Action: PD to amend Project Handbook to say that Deliverables will be regarded as finalised once
4.4 It was further agreed that PD would circulate Deliverables by email to MC members for purposes of quality control. The MC members themselves would carry out the internal quality control, and do this by email if an MC Meeting was not imminent. RS suggested that a pro-forma document for WP Leaders, spelling out this procedure, should be prepared.
[Action: PD to prepare pro-forma document for WP Leaders]
4.5 The discussion next considered the recommendation from the Peer Review that further work on WorkPackage 4 should be delayed until late in the project. The Management Committee felt that such an action would be high-risk and may result in failure to complete the project on time. It was agreed that a pragmatic approach was needed which allowed work on WP4 to continue in parallel with the other workpackages.
4.6 With regard to the activities aimed at involving the publishers community, GvT announced that the timings for the proposed Publishers Workshop in Spring 2002 were proving to be impossible (bearing in mind the agreed need to schedule such a Workshop to coincide with an FEP event that was already scheduled). He reported that there was now an alternative plan to deliver a presentation to publishers at the FEP event scheduled for May 2002, and to defer the Workshop until early 2003. One major reason for this change of plan was the fact that the WP1 questionnaire for publishers had been delayed (it had been distributed in early January 2002) and more time was needed to analyse the responses.
4.7 Returning to the question of defining users, JS pointed out that the TEL partners already have a community of users in the form of their existing user base. Initially, these users should be polled to investigate whether they would welcome an extension of the service available to them via seamless pan-European national library links. These would be a more fruitful source of potential users than any category of non-users of national library services.
4.8 With regard to the consensus-building aspect of TEL JS suggested that there was no necessity to draw up “pan-TEL” contracts, but that the prevalence should lie with local level agreements among
the national libraries and their users. The trans-national aspects should be left to the national libraries to determine themselves, without involving the users at that level. RS emphasised that it was conceivable that TEL may not result in an operational service.
4.9 On the subject of identifying user groups more clearly, US discussed the role of university library user groups. It was noted that user groups in such institutions are much more focused than in national libraries, and it was recognised that national libraries have greater difficulty in identifying, and categorising, their actual users; this difficulty extends also to the (potential) TEL user community. JS suggested that on this topic the Reviewers may have been looking at the need for user-identification more from the point of view of the requirements for an RTD project rather than an Accompanying Measure.
4.10 MdN pointed out that in the case of TEL the primary target market in the first instance could be said to be the CENL membership. RS agreed and identified two distinct kinds of users of TEL - the other national libraries in Europe who would find the outcomes of the project useful and helpful in their
own digital library developments; and potential users of a TEL service when and if it became operational.
4.11 JH talked about project ONE-2, and the potential for an operational service arising from this. He suggested that they had already done much of the kind of work that TEL will need to do on contracts. It was agreed that the main distinction was ONE-2's focus on bibliographic services (such as copy cataloguing) while TEL was focused more on delivering digital content. It was further noted that many TEL partners were also involved in ONE-2 and agreed that contact should be maintained. JH went on to point out that bibliographic services act as gateways to content and so for this reason ONE-2 and TEL could be seen as being complementary.
4.12 Turning to the specific recommendations from the Peer Review:
(A) Identification of users –CB reiterated the idea that the existing national library users, and their
user groups, should form the basis of this. JS drew attention to the existence of KB user groups among Dutch exiles. The meeting agreed that we should all look more closely at our existing users, to investigate the possibilities.
(B) New WorkPackage – The meeting felt that the thinking behind this recommendation was more
in keeping with the requirements of an RTD project rather than an Accompanying Measure. Management Committee agreed that the analysis and integration would best be handled by incorporating those activities within the current Workplan rather than through the introduction of a new WorkPackage.
[Action: PD plus WP managers - The revised Technical Annex should ensure that this
recommendation is embedded in workpackage descriptions..
(C) Interoperability work held over. As already discussed, Management Committee was not happy with this recommendation and believed a pragmatic approach was necessary. MdN offered the view that the most important work in the project so far, in terms of findings and accomplishments, had in fact been achieved by WP4. The meeting agreed, and took the view that it would be foolish to curtail the momentum built up here. It was further explained that many of the results discovered in WP4 had not been documented by the time of the Peer Review and therefore could not be offered at that time as “evidence of achievements”. It was felt that had these facts been known by the Peer Review team they would have been less likely to recommend a delay in the work of WP4.
4.13 RS suggested that a document should be drawn up presenting the reactions of the
Management Committee to the Peer Review recommendations. It was agreed that PD would do this. The meeting further agreed that this document should note that the points put forward in the reports from the individual Reviewers have been duly noted by each of the WP Leaders.
[Action: PD to prepare a document for the EC; MC members and WP Leaders to comment on the text
before it is submitted]
Revision of Technical Annexe
5. The meeting then considered the Technical Annexe revision.
5.1 At Section 6 it was agreed to add a clause mentioning the target market for TEL.
[Action: PD to add clause]
5.2 In Section 2 in the description for Interoperability Testbeds it was agreed to delete the ending of the sentence mentioning “but will not aim…”
[Action: PD to delete part-sentence]
5.3 MdN pointed out that the Description of Work for WP1 will be amended a little further by himself.
[Action: MdN to further revise Description for WP1]
5.4 PD mentioned the fact that the re-written descriptions for each WorkPackage had, as requested revised the lists of Milestones, but he pointed out that none of these Milestones included dates. He requested that these should be supplied.
[Action: All WP Leaders to supply due dates on the Milestones in their WorkPackages]
5.5 In Section 2 in the description for Metadata it was agreed to amend the word “create” (a
model…) to “define”.
[Action: PD to amend]
5.6 For WP4, CB mentioned that there would be budget implications with regard to licensing for
the TEL portal. Details are not yet available, but the meeting agreed that this was an issue that would have to be addressed in the future.
[Action: CB to advise when details of licensing costs become known]
5.7 MdN pointed out that Gabriel work mainly came under the category of unfunded work, but
that efforts directed towards preparation for the integration of Gabriel should be included in the Work Plan as a CENL activity. It was agreed that one man-month in WP4 should be taken from ICCU and
allocated instead to CENL.
[Action: PD to change time allocation, and advise ICCU accordingly]
5.9 MdN drew attention to the fact that the section on the TEL Portal mentioned two languages,
whereas in fact Gabriel is offered in three languages. The omission was the French language, and it was agreed that including French in the TA would help in incorporating MACS and other multilingual
aspects. It was agreed to change the wording to “at least two languages, but explore the possibility of adding French”. [Action: PD to amend]
5.11 It was agreed to look again at the man-months allocation in WP5. HUL agreed to lose one
man-month from this WorkPackage.
5.12 MdN asked that a quality control component be added (this is already addressed at 4.2 and 4.4
th5.13 The meeting agreed that a deadline of February 7 be set for the revision of the Technical
Annexe. th[Action: All WP Leaders to complete final amendments to their WP Descriptions by February 7, and
also to provide PD with any comments concerning the remaining sections of the TA]
5.14 JH suggested adding ONE-2 to Section 10, Clustering.
[Action: PD to add ONE-2]
The meeting then agreed that items 6, 7 and 8 on the agenda had already been covered earlier in the meeting and that there was consequently no need to return to these items at this point.
Issues for the Steering Committee
6. It was agreed that a paper would be prepared for the Steering Committee outlining the
discussions at this meeting. This should include:
(i) A report on the Peer Review (ii) A restating of what we understand TEL to be (iii) A mention of the lack of responses from certain partners (see further below)
6.1 On the question of the use of resources by partners so far in the project, MdN suggested that
some partners were falling behind in the time devoted to TEL. PD pointed out that much of this was because the early stages of the project had been concerned with scene-setting, the preparation of state-of-the-art reviews, etc. and waiting for the functional specifications for the testbeds in WP4. It was his view that the other partners would accelerate their degree of work when firmer plans were identified regarding the nature of the work to be done. US pointed out that requests from WP5 for monitoring of local websites, LIS journals, etc. in individual countries had not attracted very much response except from the larger TEL partners. It was agreed that PD should contact the individual partners to remind them of their contractual obligations, and that this matter should be put before the Steering Committee in February.
[Action: PD to contact each partner regarding their input of work] [Action: PD to raise this matter at the Steering Committee]
[Action: WP Leaders to ask all partners for input and to provide guidance in what exactly is required of them]
6.2 It was agreed that all partners needed to be reminded of their obligations to implement the
findings of WorkPackages 1, 2. 3 and 4.
[Action: PD to contact partners on this matter]
6.3 JS said that an Executive Summary should be drawn up concerning the Technical Annexe
[Action: PD to prepare Executive Summary]
6.4 PD requested that the MC should provide help in the drawing up of the Consortium
Agreement. This was agreed.
6.5 CB requested that when the Functional Specifications for the testbeds are drawn up (expected
in February 2002) the Steering Committee should be asked to re-affirm their commitment. JS said that
initially the Management Committee should address this issue.
[Action: PD to place the Functional Specifications before the Management Committee first and, following any comments, then the Steering Committee]
7. The meeting then requested brief summaries of progress from the WorkPackage Leaders.
WP1 – GvT reported that the questionnaire for publishers had been despatched the previous
week, and explained the methodology. It was explained that the delay in this meant that we th. Instead, a TEL would not be ready for a full Workshop as planned in Dublin on May 16
presentation would be delivered at this event, with the full Workshop being re-scheduled for
early 2003. It was reported that a new member of staff at KB was taking up much of the WP1
work. MdN pointed out that Liesbeth had prepared a summary of web pages dealing with
digital deposits. It was agreed that this would be a useful resource for TEL.
WP2 – JK mentioned the work going on regarding user groups and target groups. He referred
to M Collier’s work on a menu of services from partner libraries which might be made
available via TEL. It was mentioned that Collier was preparing a series of structured
interviews on the subject of market research with marketing directors in the partner libraries.
WP3 – MdN reported that a third draft of the metadata review had recently been completed,
and that a WP3 Working Group had been set up, with its first meeting scheduled for February st1. There are plans to begin work on the preparation of a Metadata Handbook.
WP4 – CB reported on the recent WP4 meeting in Florence. She said that the functional
specifications for the portal/testbed were expected to be ready by early February.
ththWP5 – US announced that the Milestone Conference was planned for April 29/30 and
outlined the draft programme. She asked that all partners should make a strong effort to be
represented at this event. US repeated the request that MC members should nominate events in
their own countries that might be suitable for dissemination activities. JH proposed that CRIS
would be a good forum for this purpose, GvT mentioned that IFLA should also be kept in
mind as a dissemination vehicle. US pointed out again that the list of publications from
individual countries was still a rather short list and requested that efforts be made to enhance
the coverage on this list.
WP6 – PD reported that the activities of WP6 were proceeding apace. The main event recently
had been the Peer Review. The MS Project TEL plan was in place, and would be constantly
updated. The Management Reports and Progress Reports were meeting target dates.
8. The Management Committee and WP Leaders Committee agreed to hold their next meeting at rdKB, The Hague, on May 3.
There being no further business, at that point the meeting closed.