O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Future of DSpace - Steering Group panel at OR14

1.589 visualizações

Publicada em

The "Future of DSpace" panel, featuring DSpace Steering Group members, at the Open Respositories 2014 conference in Helsinki, Finland.

The panel consisted of Jonathan Markow (DuraSpace), Tim Donohue (DuraSpace), Lieven Droogmans (@mire), and Debra Hanken Kurtz (Texas Digital Library). It took place on June 12, 2014.

Publicada em: Tecnologia
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

Future of DSpace - Steering Group panel at OR14

  1. 1. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License The Future of DSpace Jonathan Markow, DuraSpace Tim Donohue, DuraSpace Lieven Droogmans, @mire Debra Hanken Kurtz, Texas Digital Library
  2. 2. DSpace Steering Committee • Debra Hanken Kurtz Texas Digital Library (TDL) -Chair • Richard Jizba Creighton University • David Lewis Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) • Stuart Lewis University of Edinburgh • Lieven Droogmans @mire • Ingrid Parent University of British Columbia (UBC) • Eloy Rodrigues University of Minho • Steve Gass MIT • …Plus two at-large Member Representatives
  3. 3. Many Other Active Groups • Dspace Committers • Distributed Contributors • DSpace Community Advisory Team (DCAT) • Vision Group • DSpace Ambassadors • DSpace Sponsors – now Members!
  4. 4. Reminder: Vision DSpace will: 1.Focus on IR fundamentals, modern use cases 2.Be lean & flexible 3.Include “core IR” functionality which can be extended 4.Be designed to integrate well 5.Support low-cost, hosted solutions
  5. 5. Survey Analysis & Planning
  6. 6. Draft Product Plan(ning) • Team: 6 Committers & DCAT • Analysis: DSpace Vision Survey “features importance ranking” – Feature categorization – Rough draft of use cases – Where do we stand on popular features? • “Non-Functional” platform goals http://tinyurl.com/dspaceplan
  7. 7. Survey Feature Gaps By Average Ranking Mostly Met Partially Met Not Met ALL FEATURES (34 total) Very Highly Ranked (19 features) Moderately High (15 features) >7.5 avg out of 10 NOTE: Survey purposefully listed features & needs which we knew were not yet met. 5.0-7.5 avg out of 10
  8. 8. Highly Ranked Gaps… • 4 most highly ranked, unmet needs: – Batch upload via UI – Relationships between objects* – Configuration via Admin UI – Template driven UI for easy branding Very Highly Ranked (19 features)
  9. 9. Structural/Arch (7 features) Stats/Metrics (4 features) End User UI (9 features) Admin UI (7 features) Integrations (7 features) Survey Feature Gaps by Category
  10. 10. Non-Functional Goals • DSpace should strive to: – Be Easy to Install – Be Easy to Upgrade – Be Scalable and have Good Performance – Be Attractive to New Developers – Be Attractive to New Repo Mgrs – Avoid maintaining duplicative codebases Group felt these are important in maintaining a sustainable community product
  11. 11. Likely Project Scope • Need *single* UI and to decrease duplicative code / functions – Current maintenance effort is high – Ongoing development effort is double • Refactoring or rebuilding of codebase – Codebase & architecture is aging, needs cleanup / enhancement – Again, decrease duplicative code
  12. 12. Group Recommendations • Our “organic” development model is not good for significant work • Organized/funded project needed – Hire a Product Manager – Full time Tech Lead • Model to make Product decisions • Process to achieve our Product goals
  13. 13. Planning Process
  14. 14. Product Planning Process Develop high level vision Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1 wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Product+Planning+Process
  15. 15. High Level Vision Develop high level vision Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1 • Set vision for DSpace: – Conducted recently. – High Level. • Updated every few years
  16. 16. Community Survey Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1 • Goal: – Help validate the Vision and ensure it is in line with the needs of the Community. • Use Cases will be refreshed based on the survey feedback.
  17. 17. Product Plan Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1 • High-level plan based on: – most recent Product Vision – latest Survey and Use Cases. • Approved by the Steering Group • Updated every year/release
  18. 18. • Determine implementation options • Meet the Product Plan's yearly goals. Decisions such as which third- party tool or technology to recommend in order to meet a particular use case/need.Approved by the Steering Group • Updated every year/release Implementation Options Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1
  19. 19. Implementation Plan Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1 • Executable plan: – Based on Product Plan and recommended Impl. Options – Scheduling major features for major releases. – NOTE: will include features/improvements contributed by the community. Combination of known community contributions and planned development. • Updated every year/release
  20. 20. Governance
  21. 21. Governance Roles Technology Team Standing Working Groups
  22. 22. Governance Roles
  23. 23. Technology Team
  24. 24. Standing Working Groups
  25. 25. Working Together Develop high level vision Community survey 2 Product plan 3 Implementation options 4 Implementation plan 5 High level vision 1
  26. 26. Be Part of the Decision Making: Become a Member!
  27. 27. Questions / Comments?

×