Evaluation and Testing Applied to ENRICH WP 3

 

The point of the WP3 task 3.1 is to investigate and facilitate the migration from MASTER (TEI P4-based) manuscript descriptions to the ENRICH Specification (TEI P5-based). Much of this migration has already been completed and the outputs from this project are some basic XSLT stylesheets useful for migration, and a report on the development of migration tools. One of the recommendations is that these need to be customised to cope with the local encoding at any particular archive. Evaluation of this task, therefore, is simply to confirm that the stylesheets have been produced, that a report on recommended methods of migration has been created as a deliverable, and that these are freely available on the web.

 

  • The main part of this questionnaire consists of questions, concerning results achieved in WPs during the first year work in the project. Please consider each one carefully and choose "Yes" or "No". Then fix your rating of the Criteria evaluated in resulting to 5-point scale (from 0 - failed to 4 - excellent) by submitting your opinion.

  • The numeration of the questions below is strictly related to the Tasks formulated in ENRICH WPs, Description of Work. For example: 3.1.1 a), b) means - WP 3, the Task 3.1, the first sub task of it considered in respect of two different aspects a) and b).

  • If respondents feel that they cannot evaluate a particular item, they should read carefully Migration to the ENRICH Specification with all additional materials and explanations which will help you to deliver a reliable evaluation. The Checklist for Evaluation Criteria will give you a deeper understanding of Criteria and categories usable for evaluation.

  • After completing the questionnaire, please press the SUBMIT button at the bottom of this page to submit your responses. The information you provide is kept completely confidential.

 

Your evaluation will be more successful if you read Recommendations for Respondents and The Checklist for Evaluation Criteria. First of all identify yourself as belonging to one of four user's classes specified below.

 

Please tick the appropriate box indicating that your opinions are based on the experience of:

 

Content provider, information manager
Technical personnel, supporting staff
Scholar, researcher in historical documents
End-user having general interests

 

General scale from 0 to 4 has to be used for any approach of evaluation applied (your personal opinion or according the check list added separately)

   
The metrics used for evaluation means:

0 - Failed or feature does not exist

1 - Has poor support and/or it can be done but with significant effort

2 - Fair support but needs modification to reach the desired level of support

3 - Good support and needs a minimal amount of effort

4 - Excellent support and meets the criteria, minimal effort.
 

WP 3. STANDARDIZATION OF SHARED METADATA

 

Task 3.1: Conversion between TEI P4 and TEI P5 platforms for description of manuscripts (m2-m15). Task leader: OUCS.

 

The Content/Associated Partners are kindly asked to answer the questions below by ticking „Yes“or „No“. The resulting score of the corresponding criteria, assigned by you to that item – the sum of yours „Yes“, will be shown automatically in the next line after those questions.

 

Evaluate the developed migration tool on the basis of the sample data sets you have used (corresponding to the Task 3.1.1 - a)

Yes

No
1. Is the target data format properly documented?

2. Are the interfaces properly documented?

3. Are the underlying transformation Stylesheets available for download and modification?

4. Are a number of recommendations for migration routes available (e.g. Archive-specific (email contact) and Self-Guided)?

   
 

Failed

      

Excellent
Ranking of the INTEROPERABILITY / Tools:


0


1


2


3


4
 

 

Evaluate the developed migration tool on the basis of the sample data sets you have used with respect of tool’s adaptability (corresponding to the Task 3.1.1 - b)

Yes

No
1. Are the migration tools pre-licensed for adaptation by others?

2. Are schemas in multiple formats provided for suitable validation of resulting conversions?

3. Are the transformations clear enough that (given sufficient technical knowledge) you would be able to adapt them to your own purposes?

4. Are the formats chosen for the migration case studies suitable?

   
 

Failed

      

Excellent
Ranking of the ADAPTABILITY / Tools:


0


1


2


3


4

 

 

Evaluate the developed migration tool on the basis of the sample data sets you have used with respect of usability (corresponding to the Task 3.1.1 - c)

Yes

No
1. Have you encountered no fatal errors causing loss of work in progress?

2. Does the web interface display properly in your browser?

3. Is the interface intuitive/user-friendly enough?

4. Is the accompanying documentation well-designed and helpful?

   
 

Failed

      

Excellent
Ranking of the USABILITY / Tools:


0


1


2


3


4

 

Are you satisfied with your evaluation? The rating is from 0 = <failed or feature don’t exist> to 4 = <Excellent>:

 

 

Failed

      

Excellent
INTEROPERABILITY / Tools


0


1


2


3


4
ADAPTABILITY / Tools


0


1


2


3


4
USABILITY / Tools


0


1


2


3


4

 

If the results acceptable, please click on <Submit>; if not, return back to the questions.

You were invited to evaluate results by: *


See statistics...


 

Evaluation and Testing Applied to ENRICH WP 3, WP 4, WP 5, and WP 6

 

The all project partners have to participate in evaluation process. Thank you for your efforts in evaluating the first results derived in WPs until December 2008.

 

Home