18 Month Review Meeting Project # Enabling Access to Sound Archives through Integration, Enrichment and Retrieval WP1. Project Management Josh Reiss, Project Coordinator Betty Woessner, Project Administrator

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Eighteen Month Meeting Schedule - Thursday DateTimeParticipantWP title WP participation Thursday Nov 22nd 9:00-9:30Introduction & Presentation of Project Participants 9:30-10:30QMULWP1 Management3,4,5,6,7 10:30-12:00LFUI WP2 Media Semantics and Ontologies 3,4,7,8 12:00-13:30Lunch 13:30-15:00 Jewish National University Library (invited) Expert User Advisory Board 15:00-16:30ALLWP3 Retrieval Systems2,4,7,8 16:30-18:00NICE WP4 Sound Object Representation 3,5,7,8 Dinner

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Eighteen Month Meeting Schedule - Friday DateTimeParticipantWP leadWP participation Friday Nov 23rd 09:00-10:30DITWP5 Enriched Access Tools3,4,7,8 10:30-12:00SILOGICWP6 Intelligent Interfaces2,7,8 12:00-13:30Lunch 13:30-15:00RSAMD WP7 Evaluation & Benchmarking 2,4,6,8 15:00-16:00QMUL WP8 Dissemination & Exploitation 3,4,5,6,7 16:00-16:30Review of the minutes

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Project Schedule, WP1-4

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Project Schedule, WP5-8

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Type of deliverable:  R = Report  P = Prototype  D = Demonstrator  O = Other Deliverables- Part 1 #TitleMonthTypeLevel D8.1Public website and promotional brochure1DPU D1.1Quality assurance protocols & policies3RCO D3.1Retrieval system functionality & specifications6RRE D5.1Prototype of looping and marking modules9RPU D7.1initial user requirements & evaluation procedures9RPU D1.2management, financial & activity reports12RCO D4.1Prototype segmentation, separation & speaker/instrument identification system 14PPU D3.2Prototype speech, music retrieval systems w/ vocal query interface20PPU D1.3management, financial & activity reports24RCO D2.1metadata management infrastructure & ontology language for media objects 24RPU Dissemination level:  PU = Public  RE = Restricted group specified by consortium+ Commission.  CO = Confidential, for consortium + Commission.

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Type of deliverable:  R = Report  P = Prototype  D = Demonstrator  O = Other Deliverables- Part 2 Dissemination level:  PU = Public  RE = Restricted group specified by consortium+ Commission.  CO = Confidential, for consortium + Commission. #Deliverable titleMonthTypeLevel D3.3Prototype on cross-media retrieval system26PPU D4.2Prototype transcription system27PPU D5.2Time stretching modules w/ synchronized multimedia prototype27PPU D8.2Demonstator of deployed access tools27DRE D4.3Final report on sound object representations30RPU D5.3Final Enriched Access Tools report, with sound enhancement30RPU D6.1Aligned cross- and multi-media interface report30RPU D7.2Report on formal evaluations and deployment30RPU D8.3Final Plan for Dissemination and Use of Knowledge30RCO D1.4Final Public Report30RPU D1.5Mandatory Final management, financial and activity reports30RCO

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Deliverable Procedure & Guidelines  WP Team Leader  Gather inputs from partners  Notify coordinator of conflicts between partners  lack of communication, delays…  Organise inputs into consistent, detailed, formatted document  Supplement with additional material, Incorporate summary, references, conclusions, etc.  Communicate with partners for editing, comments, criticism, suggestions  Deliver document to Coordinator 1 month before deadline  Implement changes & resend document atleast 1 week before deadline  Coordinator  Receive document at least 1 month prior to deadline  Assist in resolution of conflicts between partners  Edit document & provides comments, criticism, suggestions  Provide supplementary material to WP Team Leader  Receive revised document from Team Leader 2 weeks before deadline  Deliver document/prototype to Commission Edit & Revision cycles may occur more than once

18 Month Review Meeting Project # WP1 Milestones Status reports & Co-ordination meetings 1.1 Private website deployed (M1) 1.2 Basic development tools; user groups; content databases; first scientific achievements; tentative dissemination & use plan; self-assessment & workplan specification (M6) 1.3 Disseminate scientific developments; revised user-feedback methodology & workplan, software progress update (M12) 1.4 Internal assessments; first prototype components available; Evaluation procedure specification and integration report (M18)  1.5 Final prototype available, initial business plan; Initial evaluation results, revision requests & deployment procedure (M24)  1.6 Final public & private reports issued, project ends (M30)

18 Month Review Meeting Project # WP1 Deliverables & Milestones  Deliverables 1.1 Quality assurance protocols and policies (M3) 1.2 Management, financial and activity reports (M12) 1.3 Management, financial and activity reports (M24) 1.4 Final Public Report (M30) 1.5 Final management, financial and activity reports (M30)

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Upcoming Work Plan – project roadmap  Months 1-6 Design & Specification  Function specifications  mock-ups, use-case scenarios  testbeds  Months 7-12 Algorithm development  proof-of-concept software  infrastructure  Months Building the archiver  delivering feature extractors  metadata schema support  Months Integration  System testing  Interface refinement  Months Deployment  On-site software installation  refinement

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Meeting Emphasis  Integration is the key focus for upcoming months.  Begin deployment of complete EASAIER system by month 24.  Emphasise integration in presentations and discussion. 1.What functionality has been integrated into the EASAIER system? Are there any outstanding issues or further work required? 2.What functionality has been delivered for integration, but not yet fully integrated. What are the issues, how and when will they be dealt with? 3.What functionality has not been delivered? What is current status on preparation for integration? What are remaining issues, how and when will they be dealt with? 4.If there are no plans to integrate a certain technology, why not?  demonstrate integrated prototypes, whenever possible.  do not demonstrate standalone prototype if there is integrated or partially integrated prototype available.  The only standalone prototypes that you should demonstrate are new technologies that haven’t yet seen.

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Testbeds  Available  HOTBED  Hungarian speaker corpus  Instrument recognition  Oyez  Needed  Language testbeds  … ?  In Progress  Small, detailed testbed for system testing  RSAMD to report

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Integration Workplan – Completed or almost complete ComponentPartner(s)WPStatus Integration workplanQMUL1First draft Aug. 30, revised every 2-4 weeks DEMOsEveryone2-7Delivered, requires integration, see above Metadata mappings – MARC, Hotbed, Dublin Core DERI2Delivered, is it usable? Music ontologyQMUL2Delivered Speech ontologyALL2Delivered and integrated with music ontology Video time/ pitch scale modification DIT, QMUL5Delivered and integrated Speech retrieval testbed with aligned transcripts QMUL3Delivered to ALL Timetable for prototype testingRSAMD7Delivered to partners, continually revised Client applicationSILOGIC7Available, tested, lacking integrated routines Speech retrieval mock-upALL3Delivered to SILOGIC for integration along with API for a web interface, lacking working functionality Feature extractorQMUL4Developed, being refined Small, detailed testbedRSAMD7First draft delivered, needs revision

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Integration Workplan – Planned for later / low priority ComponentPartner(s)WPStatusDeadline Metadata mapping – METS DERI2DERI Needs a METS package to examine content. Work to start after meeting Crossmedia retrievalQMUL3SpecifiedWork to start after meeting Instrument IDDIT4In developmentDelivered soon after Jan 08 Speaker recognitionNICE4Functional, in developmentPreparation for integration to begin after 18 month meeting New visualisation paradigms SILOGIC6In developmentShowcase at year 2 meeting Test soundbite on speechNICE3PlannedNo immediate need annotated English broadcast quality tested NICE7PlannedRequested by ALL, date unassigned Language detection testbed material Everyone7Planned, Hungarian delivered Requested by NICE, date unassigned DEMO integrationSILOGIC6Dependent on partners.All demos DONE except speech & music retrieval, speaker recognition, to discuss at meeting

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Integration Workplan – In progress, WP2-3 ComponentPartner(s)WPStatusDeadline Import metadata feature DERI2Based on metadata mappings, DERI to report To be determined Ontology –based searching DERI2Under revisionBegin integration immediately after meeting (Dec 1?) RDF storageDERI2under developmentBegin integration immediately after meeting (Dec 1?) Archivist metadata management tool QMUL (feature extractor) /DERI (Ontology editor) 2In development, needs serious discussion January 2008 Segment editingSILOGIC/QMUL2Adapt from existing marking and visualisation in Sonic Visualiser/ EASAIER client To discuss Music retrievalQMUL3Developed and demonstrateddeliver by Dec 31 Speech retrievalALL3Mock-up available, ALL to report, discuss with SILOGIC Initial version prepared for integration by Dec 31

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Integration Workplan – In progress, WP4-5 ComponentPartner(s)WPStatusDeadline NICE plugins (speech/nonspeech, gender, emotion, language, laughter, accent) NICE4speech/nonspeech, gender, emotion, delivered but currently not working. Others not delivered. To be assigned at meeting Speech segmentationALL4Delivered, not workingResolve issues and set deadline at meeting bar line, music structure segmentation DIT4Developed, but no integration work yet Progress made should be delivered January 2008 Polyphonic transcriptionQMUL/DIT5Developed, under evaluation, note duration needs further work Progress made, should be delivered Feb./March 2008 EQ & Source separationDIT5DevelopedDIT to report

18 Month Review Meeting Project # Finance  2 nd payment received and distributed to partners.  Reminder: Audits should be done for the end of year 2  20% of funding will be witheld until successful completion of the project  Annual financial reporting should be received by Queen Mary by 15 May 2008 in order to make the deadline of 15 th June  All funds for the period should be spent to receive maximum funding for the following period.