WP42 – Formal qualifications Holger Brocks hbrocks@ftk.de Forschungsinstitut für Telekommunikation und Kooperation APARSEN AHM London, 15 May 2013

Contents D42.1 revision Year 3 Planning

D42.1 Review Report Coverage Argumentation Management Slightly deviates from review aftermath discussions Recommendation 5 - A process to both elicit and accommodate contributions from the wider professional communities (not just APARSEN partners) to the deliverables should be established and maintained throughout the whole duration of the project. Evidence of such process for all future deliverables and the results for Year 3 should be presented at the 3rd Year Review. Recommendation 7 - Trust should be generated through the survey on educational and training issues; the reader has to have an idea of how reliable the survey is. One way to achieve this, in addition to amending and integrating the rejected D42.1 deliverable, is to establish and maintain a process to elicit and accommodate contributions from outside the project, as indicated in Recommendation 5. The review panel noted that the survey of existing initiatives is not complete, with some relevant holes. Although it would be demanding to strive for a complete world-wide survey, APARSEN as a NoE should at least provide a reliable and comprehensive survey in Europe – which means surveying all European countries - and to build trust in the Digital Preservation Community so relevant parties will feel that they are adequately represented in the consortium mapping. As the current analysis is biased, the panel review asks for this deliverable to be amended and integrated to address the above mentioned issues. In this deliverable, the implication often seems to be that topics not found to be offered are taken to be unimportant and vice versa (i.e. current offerings are taken as a normative basis for what should be offered). However, in some cases the lack of coverage of a topic is conveyed as a sign that there is need for further offerings. The authors of this document should reconcile this apparent contradiction. It is not clear what it means that Online learning with courses in Digital Preservation is "optional." Will this be included in the APARSEN deliverables? Coverage Argumentation Management

Coverage Language barriers encountered, pragmatic workaround discussed with PMB Strategy for amendment Integration of resources depicted by Daniel Teruggi Inquiry to consortium to identify further missing resources Reanalysis, update of diagrams Specification of management procedure for further maintenance, including link to Interactive Map

Argumentation Reformulate argumentation in critical analysis sections Possible interpretations of gaps in topical coverage Topic deemed to be not mature enough/irrelevant for education purposes Terminology mismatch Conveyed need for offerings on topic …? Proof-reading by native speaker

Management Specify tangible APARSEN WP42 outputs APARSEN curriculum (+ adaptations), course contents Clarify roles/contributions of WP42/WP43 and RTD WPs VCoE services and products Production and offering of online courses (as certified training and qualification opportunity for end-users) is not planned according to DoW and will not become a Deliverable Learning Management System (LMS) component for running online courses was marked optional in D42.1. Implementation and offering of such service depends on business/sustainability model defined by WP11

Year 3 Planning Revision of D42.1 Definition of APARSEN curricula and courses Internal workshop to be scheduled for end of June, 2013 Identification of admissible resources, creation of CMS Implementation of management processes for resource register Envisioned output: Engagement with communities and external stakeholders