Names in Context (Nic) : The Arrow Nicnames Project Project Plan

Names in Context (Nic)
The Arrow NicNames Project
Project Plan
Version 1.1
Project
Project Title Names in Context: The Arrow NicNames Project
Start Date September 2008 End Date October 2009
Project Manager Mary Grammatoglou
Swinburne University of Technology
Lead Institution Swinburne University of Technology
Partner Institutions University of New South Wales
University of Newcastle
Project Web URL http://names.wikidot.com/ (Project Wiki; closed access initially)
http://nicnamesproject.blogspot.com/ (Project blog)
Project Board Teula Morgan (Swinburne), Tom Ruthven (UNSW), Vicki Picasso (Newcastle)
Document
Document Title Project Plan
Author & project role Mary Grammatoglou, Project Manager
Date 20 August 2009 Filename NamesProjectPlan_v1.1.doc
URL
Access Public document
Document History
Version Date Comments
0.1 2008-09-30 SH Draft
0.2 2008-10-03 Includes amendments from Board meeting 30/09/2008
0.3 2008-10-10 Includes work plans
0.4 2008-10-21 Further amendments
0.5 2008-11-01 Public Draft
1.0 2009-08-10 Version 1.0 released
1.1 2009-08-20 Work Plan amendments
Page 1 of 20
ARROW Names project: Draft Project Plan v1.1
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date: 17 September 2009
Table of Contents
Project Plan................................................................................................................................... ...................3
1Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. ...3
2Aims and objectives.............................................................................................................. .....................3
3Scope.................................................................................................................................... .....................3
4Project outputs................................................................................................................ ...........................3
5Project outcomes..................................................................................................................................... ...3
6Project Plan.................................................................................................................................... ............3
6.1Project management.................................................................................................................. .........4
6.2Review of global developments with respect to the management of names......................................4
6.3Stakeholder requirements analysis................................................................................... ..................4
6.4Institutional analysis............................................................................................................... .............4
6.5Schema, formats and standards analysis.................................................................. .........................4
6.6System specification........................................................................................................ ...................5
6.7Development of guidelines toolkit and documentation.............................................. .........................5
6.8Specification and development of name management tool(s)....................................................... .....5
6.9Implementation, testing, feedback and review of guidelines and tools in partner institutions.............5
6.10Evaluation....................................................................................................................... ..................5
6.11Release..................................................................................................................... ........................5
7Stakeholder analysis......................................................................................................... .........................5
8Risk analysis.............................................................................................................................................. .6
9Quality assurance................................................................................................................................ .......6
10Licensing........................................................................................................................... .......................7
11Communication........................................................................................................................................ .7
12Sustainability.......................................................................................................................... ..................7
13Work Plans.................................................................................................................................. .............9
14Appendix A – Development of additional names disambiguation tools ....................................... ..........20
Page 2 of 20
ARROW Names project: Project Plan v1.1
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Project Plan
1 Introduction
This project seeks to provide a means to more effectively manage author names in institutional repositories.
In the first instance this means the repositories of the three participating institutions, but with the intention of
developing tools which would be useful to the broader ARROW community. To do so will require the
development of at least part of an authority system similar to that used in the library world, but with
differences arising from the exclusively digital and finer grained nature of repository holdings and from the
nature of activities around repositories as well as their wider, national and global, context.
The principal project deliverables are expected to include either the identification or the development of a
schema suitable for the management of names within a repository context and an application or tool which
will assist repository managers to disambiguate and manage variant author name forms.
2 Aims and objectives

To assist institutional repository managers to more effectively manage author and institutional names by
providing a platform independent practical toolkit, consisting of guidelines and open source tools, which will
help with the effective identification, disambiguation, matching and display of names.
3 Scope
This project is intended to develop methods and tools for dealing with personal names of research active
university staff only. It is not intended to address either corporate body names or subjects. Nor is it about
access or authorisation with respect to university systems. The project is only intended to help resolve
issues with respect to multiple forms of author names within university repositories.
The project will also be constrained by its fixed budget and by an expectation that the project will complete
by the end of March. It may be further constrained by wanting to produce platform independent products.
4 Project outputs
a. A project plan;
b. A review of global developments classified by possible use;
c. A stakeholder requirements analysis;
d. An institutional analysis;
e. An analysis of relevant schema and standards;
f. A system specification;
g. A guidelines toolkit;
h. One or more open source applications/tools;
i. An implementation plan;
j. A project evaluation report with recommendations for further action;
k. A release plan.
5 Project outcomes
The outcomes of this project will be focussed on providing assistance with better management of author and
institutional names within institutional repositories consistent with developing global practice and standards.
This will then assist users of repositories to more easily find all works by a particular author and give
repository contributors more confidence when contributing their work.
6 Project Plan
The project plan will outline a number of distinct tasks as follows;
Page 3 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
a. Project management tasks

b. A review of the global state of play in relation to name authorities;
c. Stakeholder requirements analysis;
d. Institutional analysis;
e. An analysis of the various schema and standards which are either being developed or already
exist and which might be suitable for the project purposes;
f. System specification;
g. Development of guidelines toolkit and documentation;
h. Development of name management applications/tools;
i. Implementation, testing, feedback and review of toolkit and tools within project partner
institutions;
j. Project evaluation and recommendations;
k. Release of guidelines and tools to wider community.
6.1 Project management

Under the direction of the project board, the project manager will write the project plan and manage its
execution, provide regular reporting on progress and write an evaluation at project completion.
6.2 Review of global developments with respect to the management of names

The UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) funded Names Project has recently completed a
review (see http://names.mimas.ac.uk/documents/LandscapeReport26Jun2008.pdf ) which broadly covers
the requirements of this project.
For our purposes however, the review will be extended to incorporate a more comprehensive listing of
relevant standards, formats and name authority management guidelines. This data will then be analysed
and classified according to how it might be useful to the project.
6.3 Stakeholder requirements analysis

The project partners will each have views about the nature of the project and the outcomes desired, as will
other members of the ARROW consortium and community. There are also a number of other key national
players who will have an interest or stake in the outcome of the project.
It may be that these players and stakeholders will be in broad agreement about the project, but it is more
likely that there will be a diversity of views. It is therefore important to consult widely, but to then clearly
articulate the problem and how the project will seek to resolve it.
For this reason, it is proposed that a stakeholder requirements analysis be undertaken, which will document
the requirements of the various players and, if possible, a consensus as to what the project should do.
It is expected that, in the first instance, this will involve a business analyst interacting with repository
managers in each of the three partner institutions to clearly determine their current and desired business
processes. This would then be used as the basis of discussion with other stakeholders and firmed up as a
set of requirements expected from the project.
6.4 Institutional analysis

Institutional repositories operate within the context of their home institutions and need to interact with the
systems extant within those institutions. It will therefore be necessary to analyse the various institutional
contexts in order to develop a clear understanding of the local constraints within which the project and its
products will operate.
6.5 Schema, formats and standards analysis

The stakeholder requirements analysis (and the review) should result in a clear picture of what the project
should aim to achieve (beyond broad objectives). This then will provide the basis for more a detailed and
focussed analysis of the various schema, formats and standards which could be implemented by the project
and for making decisions about which should be used and how. It may be that, at this stage, some
specification of how a schema will be used is needed and should be completed before proceeding.
Page 4 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
This should be done taking into account national and international developments revealed by the review of
global developments as an indication of the directions the international community is taking name
authorities.
6.6 System specification

Once the underlying foundation is well understood, a system specification should be developed, setting out
how repository business processes will need to be adapted to use the outcomes of the project. This will
probably have four components;
a. Specifying the various input and output process flows;

b. Specifying the data mapping and transformations required;
c. Specifying storage requirements and how such storage fits within existing repository structures;
d. Specifying operations which require human intervention and those which can be automated.
6.7 Development of guidelines toolkit and documentation

A significant part of the project deliverables will be documentation setting out how to modify repository
business practices to achieve better management of names in a sustainable way. This should be developed
based on the foundation and specification work previously undertaken.
6.8 Specification and development of name management tool(s)

Software specification and development of the tools identified in the system specification. It is envisaged
that a suite of tools will be needed to, for instance, analyse names in existing repositories and to provide
interoperability with external (and internal university) bodies
6.9 Implementation, testing, feedback and review of guidelines and tools in partner institutions
While the toolkit documentation and tools are being completed, an implementation and testing plan will be
developed.
Each of the partner institutions will then participate by implementing the new procedures and using the tools.
A testing, bug fix/upgrade cycle will be established until the products reach an acceptable release standard.
6.10Evaluation
Once the project deliverables have reached an operational standard, an evaluation report will be prepared
with a view to determining whether they are of a standard which could be released to the wider repository
community. Any recommendations for further action will also be documented at this stage.
Further work may then be required to prepare products for release.
6.11Release
A release plan will be prepared and implemented.
7 Stakeholder analysis
Stakeholder Interest/Stake Importance
ARROW Project Parent project and funding body High
Project partner institutions Possible early adopters High
Repository managers Better quality service High
Researchers More effective dissemination of research output Medium
End users Improved resource discovery Medium
NLA: People Australia Acquiring and supplying researcher data High
Australian National Data Service (ANDS) Have similar but much broader objectives High
Australian Access Federation (AAF) Have parallel but different objectives Low
CAUL/CAIRS Possible site support for project outcomes Medium
MACAR Strong interest in metadata for repositories High
Fed Government: DIISR ANDS funding body Medium
Fed Government: DEEWR Formerly DEST; ARROW funding body Low
Page 5 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Elsevier: Scopus Commercial database provider; name forms High

Thomson: ISI Web of Knowledge Commercial database provider; ResearcherID High
8 Risk analysis
Risk Probability Impact Management

Project products and Medium High • Work closely with partner
recommendations not adopted by institutions repository managers
repository community throughout the project;
• Communicate project directions
and outcomes to the wider
repository community;
• Negotiate with CAIRSS to adopt
project outcomes;
• Develop post project upgrade and
maintenance program for project
products.
Project not able to produce Low High • Clearly articulate project goals;
satisfactory products • Carefully specify project
outcomes;
• Ensure operational staff
understand requirements and are
adequately resourced.
Global developments invalidate Medium Medium • Closely monitor national and
project outcomes international developments;
• Try to anticipate future directions
and/or make provision for the
adoption of standards as they are
produced.
Project partners unable to agree on Low High • Establish and maintain effective
outcomes communication between project
partners;
• Address issues as they arise;
• Manage expectations - be
realistic about what the project
can achieve.
Insufficient time to satisfactorily Medium Medium • Manage expectations;
complete project • Plan carefully, monitor progress
and deploy extra resources if
necessary;
• Plan for post project product
maintenance.
Key personnel move on and can’t be Low Medium • Carefully specify requirements;
replaced • Require well documented
products.
9 Quality assurance
Product Criteria Method Compliance Responsibility

Project plan • Accurate reflection of Review by Acceptance by
intended project; Project Project Board
• Adequate description of work Board
requirements.
Page 6 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Review and • Comprehensiveness; Peer Acceptance by

classification of • Useful classification. review Project Board
global
developments
Stakeholder and Clear and accurate articulation of Peer Acceptance by
Institutional stakeholder and institutional review Project Board
requirements requirements.
analyses
Schema and • Comprehensiveness; Peer Acceptance by
standards analysis • Clear articulation of purpose review Project Board
of schema or standard and
where it might fit with respect
to the Names Project.
System • System specified will meet Peer Acceptance by
specification stakeholder requirements; review, Project Board
• Specifications sufficient to review by
enable guidelines toolkit and Project
applications/tools to be Board
produced.
Guidelines toolkit • Level of usability; Peer Acceptance by
• Use leads to desired review Project Board
outcome.
Applications/tools • Level of usability; Peer Acceptance by
• Use leads to desired review Project Board
outcome.
Implementation Likely to lead to a successful Review by Acceptance by
plan implementation. Project Project Board
Board
Evaluation report Comprehensiveness. Review by Acceptance by
Project Project Board
Board
Release plan Likely bring products to the Review by Acceptance by
attention to repository managers Project Project Board
at least Australia wide. Board
10 Licensing
The chief project products; the guidelines toolkit and the applications/tools, will be released under open
source and open documentation licences such as the Creative Commons
(http://creativecommons.org.au/licences) or GNU (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-howto.html) licences.
11 Communication
Internal project communication will be by use of a closed Wiki (http://names.wikidot.com/), regular phone
conference project board meetings and less regular face to face meetings. Communication with and
reporting to the broader ARROW Project will be by normal ARROW reporting processes and documented
through the ARROW web site.
The public face of the project will, initially, through a project blog. This will be used to distribute a monthly
project report for any participant to raise issues or report interesting findings.
As the project becomes established, the Wiki will be opened up to public view, at least in part.
12 Sustainability
Sustainability of the outcomes of the ARROW Names Project can be rolled into the broader issue of how to
maintain the outcomes of the ARROW Project itself. This is being addressed by CAUL (Council of
Page 7 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Australian University Librarians) by proposing to set up a body called the CAUL Australian Institutional
Repositories Support Service (CAIRSS).
The principal issue for the Names Project will be how to maintain and continue to develop both the
guidelines toolkit documentation and the software applications developed to accompany that toolkit,
particularly in the context of rapidly changing global initiatives with respect to name authorities. However,
promoting take up (perhaps by developing use cases) and monitoring changes in the environment (so the
tools and guidelines can be adapted) will also be important.
It will be necessary to address these issues as part of the project windup and handover process.
Page 8 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
13 Work Plans
Work Plan and Activities Earliest Start Latest Outputs Milestone Responsibility
Date Completion
Date
Task 1: Project management
Objective: To ensure timely

and well directed
performance of the project
activities
1. Write project plan. 15 Sep 2008 07 Nov 2008 • Project plan Stuart Hall
• Work plans
2. Monitor and report on 01 Nov 2008 • Progress reports Stuart Hall
project progress. Mary Grammatoglou
3. Monitor the project • Recommendations for further Stuart Hall
environment for possible action
links and synergies with
other initiatives.
Page 9 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 2: Review of global
developments
Objective: To develop a
clear understanding of the
global environment in
which the project will be
operating
4. Analyse the recent review 13 Nov 2008 24 Sep 2009 • Global and national names Rebecca Parker
for the JISC Names disambiguation environment
Project and prepare a review.
preliminary classification • Report on updated literature
of resources and review.
developments.
5. Determine what additional • Global and national names Rebecca Parker
global developments and disambiguation environment
resources need to be review.
reviewed for this project
and research them.
6. Classify and prioritise • Global and national names Rebecca Parker
developments and disambiguation environment
resources as they relate to review.
this project. • Classification and prioritisation of
initiatives, developments and
resources of importance to project.
Page 10 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 3: Stakeholder
requirements analysis
clear understanding as to
the purpose(s) of the
project and how it is
expected to interact with
other initiatives and
organisations.
7. Interview repository 17 Nov 2008 22 Feb 2009 • Report on stakeholder Damien Ingle
managers in the three requirements.
participating institutions to
determine their
requirements from the
project.
8. Identify other organisations • Report on stakeholder Damien Ingle
with a stake or interest in requirements.
the project and ascertain
their expectations from the
project.
9. Articulate the problem that • Report on stakeholder Damien Ingle
the project will seek to requirements.
resolve and how, in broad • Recommendations as to how to
terms, that will be satisfy stakeholder requirements.
achieved.
Page 11 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 4: Institutional
analysis
clear understanding of the
institutional environments
within which the project will
operate.
10. Analyse the various 17 Nov 2008 22 Feb 2009 • Report on institutional systems Damien Ingle
institutional systems with relating to names.
which repositories might
need to interact.
11. Analyse how future • Report on institutional systems Damien Ingle
developments might affect relating to names.
institutional systems.
12. Articulate, in broad terms, • Report on institutional systems Damien Ingle
how project interaction with relating to names.
institutional systems • Recommendations as to how to
should be handled. interact with institutional systems.
Page 12 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 5: Schema, standards
and mapping analysis
Objective: To identify
current and developing
standards, schema and
mapping relating to names
and determine how they
might relate to the current
project.
13. Analyse schema, 3 Feb 2009 24 Oct 2009 • Report on relevant schema, Rebecca Parker
standards and mappings standards and mappings.
(identified through the
review) and determine how
they might best be used by
the current project.
14. Make recommendations as • Recommendations as to which Rebecca Parker
to how the preferred schema, standards and mappings
schema and mappings should be applied to this project
should be used. and how.
Page 13 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 6: System
specification
Objective: To fully the

specify the systems and
documentation to be
developed by the project.
15. Specify the system 15 Sep 2009 • A system specification. Chris Lofting
functions, then how those
functions are to be
implemented.
16. Specify a database • A fully specified names Chris Lofting
schema. disambiguation schema.
17. Specify input and output • Specifications for data flows and Chris Lofting
data flows and mappings. associated data mappings.
18. Specify applications and • Software specifications for each Chris Lofting
tools. tool and application identified in
the system specification.
19. Specify user interfaces, • User interfaces specifications. Chris Lofting
including documentation • Documentation and guidelines
and guidelines toolkit. specification.
20. Specify any design • Description of design and Chris Lofting
constraints such as a need development constraints.
to adhere to applicable
standards
Page 14 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 7: Development of
guidelines toolkit
Objective: Produce a set of

recommendations and
guidelines as to how to
manage personal names
within institutional
repositories.
21. Generate a set of 7 Sep 2009 • Usability Research Project (The Rebecca Parker
recommendations as to Hiser Group).
how best to deal with • Recommendations.
personal names within the
particular context of
Australian institutional
repositories.
22. Develop a set of 24 Oct 2009 • Guidelines. Rebecca Parker
procedures for dealing with
personal names in
institutional repositories.
23. Develop documentation Sep 2 2009 • Documentation. Thomas Rutter
and manuals for the • Manuals. Chris Lofting
project tools and
applications.
Page 15 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Page 16 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 8: Development of
applications and tools
Objective: To develop tools

and applications to harvest
and submit name variants
from/to a variety of sources
and map them to/from a
standard name association
format.
24. Develop a method for free- Aug 21 2009 • Application function tool. Thomas Rutter
text searching of identities,
with results listed in order
of relevance, with a web
interface.
25. Develop a method for Aug 21 2009 • Application function tool. Thomas Rutter
importing data into
NicNames from external
sources, with auto-
matching where new data
for an existing identity is
found.
26. Develop the schema and Aug 21 2009 • Application function tool. Thomas Rutter
matching algorithm.
27. Develop a method for Sep 2 2009 • Application function tool. Thomas Rutter
editing NicNames records
directly with a web
interface.
28. Develop a method for Sep 5 2009 • Institutional name data harvesting Thomas Rutter
taking in citation data in a tool.
particular format (such as
MARC XML) and export
the same data, with
NicNames identifiers
added.
29. Authenticate users as 10 Sep 2009 • Application function tool. Thomas Rutter
either unprivileged or as Page 17 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 9: Implementation,
testing, feedback and
review
Objective: Test and refine

the products by
implementing them in the
partner institutions along
with a maintenance and
upgrade regime.
32. Write implementation plan. 25 Sep 2009 • Implementation plan Thomas Rutter
33. Implement prototype • Implementation plan. Thomas Rutter

application, tools and Chris Lofting
guidelines in partner Contract programmer
institutions as they become UNew?
available. Contract programmer
UNSW?
34. Establish a testing, • Bug reports, maintenance and Thomas Rutter
feedback, upgrade requests. Rebecca Parker
maintain/upgrade/fix and • Documentation, manuals and
review cycle for each tool guidelines edit requests.
and application. • Improved tools, applications,
documentation and guidelines.
35. Define product acceptance • Product acceptance standards. Thomas Rutter
standards for each product • ‘Finished’ products. Rebecca Parker
and determine when an
acceptable level of
performance has been
reached.
Page 18 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
Date Completion
Date
Task 10: Project evaluation
Objective: Determine
whether the project
achieved its objectives and
what recommendations
arose as to future activity.
36. Prepare a project • Project evaluation report. Rebecca Parker
evaluation report. Chris Lofting
37. Prepare recommendation • Recommendations. Rebecca Parker
for further action. Chris Lofting
Task 11: Release of
guidelines and tools
Objective: Facilitate the

uptake of the project
deliverables within the
broader Institutional
repository community.
38. Prepare a release strategy. • Release strategy. Thomas Rutter
Rebecca Parker
39. Implement release • Release ready deliverables. Thomas Rutter
strategy. Rebecca Parker
Page 19 of 20
Last updated:
Arrow Names Project
Draft Project Plan
14 Appendix A – Development of additional names disambiguation tools

Names disambiguation tools were identified that were considered outside the scope of this project and not
part of the principal project deliverables. As these tools are useful to this project and to the broader ARROW
community in managing names within a repository context, it is anticipated these tools could be developed
at a later stage. The Work Plans that have been documented for these tools are included below to assist
any further development.
Work Plan and Activities Outputs
1. Develop a tool to harvest name variants from existing • Bulk repository harvesting tool.
repositories and map them into a standard names
disambiguation format.
2. Develop a tool to harvest name variants from People Australia • People Australia harvesting tool.
and map them into a standard names disambiguation format.
Note: Various organisations can harvest from the NicNames
application once it is release to the broader community.
3. Develop tools to harvest name variants from upstream • Commercial provider harvesting
commercial providers and map them into a standard names tools.
disambiguation format.
Note: Various organisations can harvest from the NicNames
application once it is release to the broader community
Page 20 of 20
Last updated:

Names in Context (Nic) : The Arrow Nicnames Project Project Plan

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Names in Context (Nic) : The Arrow Nicnames Project Project Plan

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Names in Context (Nic)

The Arrow NicNames Project

2 Aims and objectives

a. Project management tasks

6.1 Project management

6.2 Review of global developments with respect to the management of names

6.3 Stakeholder requirements analysis

6.4 Institutional analysis

6.5 Schema, formats and standards analysis

6.6 System specification

a. Specifying the various input and output process flows;

6.7 Development of guidelines toolkit and documentation

6.8 Specification and development of name management tool(s)

Further work may then be required to prepare products for release.

Elsevier: Scopus Commercial database provider; name forms High

Risk Probability Impact Management

Product Criteria Method Compliance Responsibility

Review and • Comprehensiveness; Peer Acceptance by

Objective: To ensure timely

Objective: To fully the

Objective: Produce a set of

Objective: To develop tools

Objective: Test and refine

33. Implement prototype • Implementation plan. Thomas Rutter

Objective: Facilitate the

14 Appendix A – Development of additional names disambiguation tools

Work Plan and Activities Outputs

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi