Interesting as inspiration for D2.4 although they seem to take a different approach. Listing requirements per content provider with the objective of making each content provider into a EDM resource. You could say they have developped tailored ECK to be fully implemented into the local ICT infrastructure of content providers.
Provides ideas about how to continue actvities after an European project has finished. Maybe projects providing technical solutions needs different scenarios but I think it's relevant to look at.
I guess this is deliverable describes the core of what Europeana is supposed to be. It is however over 2 years old, and the ideas have shifted somewhat.
Also highly relevant since it specifies how proprietary metadata is transformed in a couple of stages into Europeana EDM as well as other service providers including Flickr. The only concern is that for HOPE it was clear from the beginning that a central service was delivered unlike EU-Inside.
A good example for D2.4? Although in the document it says: we must stress that this document is neither a
Functional Requirements nor a Technical Specifications document.
It's unclear to me if such documents have been produced in the HOPE project and if they are accessible to us.
Since we've aggreed to use UML in helping to put together the specifications, it's useful to reach aggrement on how far we go with this. The maturity level might be of help.