SakaiVre index |
Sakai VRE demonstrator user requirements
This page contains notes about the requirements of VRE users.
Contents:
Contents
1. General
Cross-research-domain requirements.
[[[Some of these may later be moved to domain-specific areas.]]]
- Suppporting researchers' day to day activities [1]. But in [2], we see a desire for supporting less frequent administrative activities (travel, grants, expenses, etc.).
- Repeatability of in silico experiments, through a central repository in silico experiments [1]; this is a copy of everything (code, data, scripts, instructions) that is needed to accurateley repeat a given in-silico experiment.
- Access to best-practice documentation, and support for best practices, within the VRE [1]
- Publicly accessible front-door for demonstration of core infrastructure (Really? How does this support research?) [1]
- Remote collaborative manipulation of data objects of various kinds, supported by an audio link [1]
- Capture and store collaborative discussions [1]
- Some of the specific requirements mentioned above appear to be motivated by a desire for support in training new researchers
- Access to high-performance computation facilities for modelling [1]
- Maintain multiple usernames/passwords for a range of databases and services: single sign-on suggested [2]
- Locate other researchers [2]
- Searchable list of conferences, lectures and other events [2]
- Selective delivery of information [2] (this also came up in [1], sect 4.5)
- Supporting grant applications [2]
- Forums and spaces for internal communication and recruitment [2]
- Access to searchable databases of digital (digitized) artefacts [2]
2. Specific domains
(Requirements that seem to be specific to a domain)
2.1. Humanities
- Environment simple and easy for non-technical users
3. Proposed VRE tools
- Digital pen-and-paper technology [1] (e.g. Anoto - ref in [1])
- Digital whiteboard to support distributed mathematical modelling [1]
- Collaborative video annotation [1]; e.g. Vannotea.
- Simulation software issue tracking tool [1], with reference to traceability of in-silico experiments affected by software changes
- Linked agenda meeting scheduling tool [1]
- Calendar tool [1]
- RSS aggregator tool [1]
- Local wikis and chat [1]
- Secure storage of digital ink and whiteboard notes [1]
- Personal access grids (video conferencing) [1]
- Biological data repositories [1]
- Configuration management support [1]
4. Other comments
- Scientific workflow: from [1] (sect 4.8.1), it appears that this is highly variable between researchers, which raises a question about the suitability of common workflow support within the VRE.
- In [1], the report "such a technology, if it were sufficiently robost and easy to use ..." is made of a proposed tool with clear benefit, but also the clear implication that if it were not so robust and easy to use then it would not be used
- In [1], the discussion of collaborative video annotation makes passing reference to the need for local copies. This spurs the idea that if one researcher is examining a particular dataset offline from the actual collaboration, this might be used as a clue to initiate creation of local caches for other participants so the data can be brought quickly into the collaborative session
Not looking for support in paper-writing acrtivities [1]
- Wiki also used as training tool [1]
- Follow Google desktop presentation style/ideas for ease of use? [2]
- Is there a science/humanities dichotomy in the requirement for core research activity support vs administrative activity support? (cf. [1] sect 1.1 and [2] sect 3.2). For the humantities, the access to searchable databases of digital artefacts was the only requirement that appeared to be directly bearing on research activity. Am I wrong?
- The issue of gaining a critical mass of buy-in is raised in [2], section 3.5. Experience from the standards community suggests that the design must provide some immediate benefits not dependent on such buy-in.
- Does using the system give continuing value after the user leaves a given institution. I (GK) can attest to the importance of this: I use personal email and Web services, sometimes linked to the Oxford systems, because of precisely such concerns. I think that paying attention to interoperability via widely used open standards may be important here.
5. Related projects
- Resource Discovery Service (RDS) [2]
- Academic Computing development team (SCDT) [2]
6. Conclusions
Does it really make sense to substitute the term e-research for e-science? There appears to be quite a large difference between the requirements of science and humanities researchers with respect to what they want from a VRE. Do these requirements really lead to a common system or is it a case of seeing just nails when the tool we have is a chainsaw? (Matthew Dovey made a point about this, the details of which I have mentally mislaid.)
[[[More... that should be just the first of many.]]]
7. References
http://www.vre.ox.ac.uk/ibvre/IBVRE%20Initial%20Analysis%20Report.pdf - IBVRE initial requirements analysis report
http://bvreh.humanities.ox.ac.uk/BVREH_Interim_Results_of_User_Survey_Report_web.pdf - BVREH Interim user survey report.
-- GrahamKlyne 2006-02-22 16:17:51
