Report Format for Metadata Training and Outreach Projects
Category 1: 2011, 2012
NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program
Metadata Training and Outreach Assistance Project
Interim and Final Project Report Format
Keep the report short and to the point. All reports will be posted to the FGDC grants Web site.
Indicate whether Interim or Final report
Organization: Name, Mailing Address, Web Address
Principal Investigator: Name, Telephone Number, Email Address
Collaborating Organizations: Organization Name, Contact Name, Mailing Address, Web Address
Write a short paragraph (under 250 words) describing the key successes or outcomes of the project. The interim report should highlight anticipated outcomes and actual milestones, whereas the final report summary should describe the project as completed.
The interim report shall highlight anticipated outcomes and actual milestones. The final report summary shall describe the project as completed. Summarize the project activities. Include its accomplishments, successes, challenges, and collaboration activities, as appropriate. How were challenges identified and what steps were taken to overcome these challenges?
In writing the report keep in mind the objective of this category is for organizations skilled in metadata implementation to assist other organizations or administrative units by providing metadata training, metadata creation assistance, and metadata program implementation and support. Ideally, sustained on-going processes for data documentation will be established for organizations for documenting (metadata) their geospatial holdings, serving this documentation.
Training and outreach assistance:
Indicate the number, duration, and venue (indicate if Internet/Web supported, i.e. Webinar) of workshops conducted, as appropriate.
List organizations and organizational type (Federal, State, local, Tribal, academic, NGO, etc.) for workshop participants. Names and email addresses for participants are optional, but desirable, as an appendix.
List number of individuals and the agency/organization they represent receiving metadata training, and outreach assistance.
List for each workshop the overall customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction rating is from the NSDI training evaluation form which also provides means to evaluate trainer proficiency. The evaluation is administered after each workshop and should take as little as 10 minutes if measuring customer satisfaction alone and 20 minutes for if measuring both customer satisfaction and trainer proficiency. The evaluation form is available at http://www.fgdc.gov/training.
Letters of recognition for the workshop to the awardee, publication articles regarding the workshop, external endorsement for the workshop.
Describe the means of instruction: lecture only, lecture and exercises, or lecture and computer assisted.
Provide the method(s) of promoting the workshop (e.g., FGDC Calendar, Listserv, etc.)
List new organizations engaged in this project.
Status of Metadata Service
Indicate how and where metadata is served: NSDI registered clearinghouse node, Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) provider software, or FGDC Browse-enabled Web Directory, where metadata is in XML and harvestable through a metadata portal.
Approximately how many metadata files have resulted from this project, if any?
If any photographs, graphics, or illustrations of the project in action are highly desirable. If available, please include a few.
Will the project's activities continue after the award is closed?
What formal or informal organizational relationships established to sustain activities beyond performance period?
Describe the next phase in your project.
Are there issues in metadata management and service? Do you need FGDC assistance?
Requirements (more technical assistance, software, other?)
What other areas need work?
What do you anticipate future metadata training, outreach, creation and posting (to clearinghouse or other locations) after the project performance period ends?
Feedback on Cooperative Agreements Program (to
be completed for the final report)
What are the CAP Program strengths and weaknesses?
Where did it make a difference?
Was the assistance you received sufficient or effective?
What would you recommend that the FGDC do differently?
Are there factors that are missing or are there additional needs that should be considered?
Are there program management concerns that need to be addressed, such as the time frame?
If you were to do the project again, what would you do differently?