[Standards] KPI spreadsheet: modifications

[Piotr Banski]

Dear all,

I have introduced some changes to the KPI spreadsheet, in order to make 
it both more comprehensive and easier to read (and, well, let's see how 
that has worked out...). As a reminder, the link is:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MEK-RAqK3eCXb6g8pztB1WI7atzbp3KUZ455izdSJj4/edit

I have separated the horizontal list of centres into several sections 
and added some colour coding. I have also saved two named versions of 
the spreadsheet: one marks the state from before the CAC (that is the 
one that I copied and made available for commenting during the 
pitch/Bazaar sessions), and one has some centres added but no 
rearrangement (that one has "35 centres" in its name).

Because the abbreviations used for centres are not always easily 
recognizable, I thought that arranging them according to some 
independent and easily accessible ordering could be beneficial. I used 
the ordering in the https://www.clarin.eu/content/certified-centres list 
for the first part. (That also allowed me to spot the missing Pisa 
centre, ILC; added now).

After that part comes Cocoon -- a C-centre that nevertheless accepts 
data and therefore may fall under the KPI, depending on its exact 
definition. Next comes CLST RUN (more on that later), and further comes 
a list of 10 centres that are described at https://centres.clarin.eu/ as 
"aiming for B".

I am a bit puzzled about the interplay between CLST RUN (ru.nl) and ACE 
(https://ace.ruhosting.nl/), and this probably comes from me not being 
fully aware of the institutional ties and knots...

If I get it reasonably right, ACE is part of CLST. CLST is a C-centre, 
while ACE is a K-centre that accepts data, and the page listed for CLST 
(https://www.ru.nl/clst/clarin-centre/preferred-recommended-data-formats/ 
) actually talks about ACE. Perhaps we could simply put "ACE / CLST" in 
the head of the column and let the nitty-gritty fade into the 
background? :-)

All in all, what we have in the spreadsheet now is: a list of the 
certified B-centres, followed by two non-B centres that nevertheless 
accept data and provide the relevant info pages, followed by a list of 
wannabe-B-centres that await the certification process. Members of the 
latter set are in a way waiting to be moved to the part listing 
B-centres, once the certification is successful.

The KPI can be computed over the B-centres or over the {B-centres, 
Cocoon, ACE} set, depending on its definition or the required angle.

If this is accepted by the CSC, then we could establish the KPI-related 
part of our workplan as getting the info on the missing B-centres filled 
(noting that ILC4CLARIN needs to be placed in Fahad's hands :-)) and 
getting in touch with the Assessment Committee about the 
(re-)certification process that should automatically force the 
preparation of info pages on accepted formats but at present doesn't. So 
these centres would be largely out of our hair, in that we would not 
have to perform the added job of asking (and then asking again) for the 
pages to appear.

Hoping that the modification is acceptable and looking forward to your 
potential comments,

    Piotr