# Sprint Retrospective Template _Date_: 20.03.2023 **Bjørn Tore** Testing our data models with Chemeo. Chemeo is complicated. Unclear how we would docuemnt chemeo as a datasource in our technology stack. Dome4.0 is not progressing on project level as a lot is hanging on UCL. Hoping that he will attend some meetings this week. There is not a lack of tasks, but all is depending on the connectors that are UCLs responsibility. Have more time for tasks in team4.0 now if LedaFlow release does not sudenly require a lot (release before Easter) **3.5** **Sylvain** Worked with Daniel on improving PreMod. Worked well. Synergy between two projects (not Team4.0). Getting closer to see how our work in Team4.0 can help our other work (?). Also work with Dataverse. Interesting. **4** **Anders** Finished Pint/QUDT. Finished reading Architecture report from Thomas in OntoTrans. Liked this a lot. Sepnt time with Mediate - done some reading of papers and started writing down some more clear requirements that will define our work in the project. SAMPLE project application - large scale application of Team4.0 technology. **4** **Thomas** ChatGPT is fun. Suddenly we got Treesa back. Things changed around a bit. Sad that I keep hearing that we do not have the vision. I think we have come very far. Need to slignement from both sides. Good with architecture support from Anders. Behind on everything. Surprised about Tripper changing in another direction. Subgroup discussions happening without everyone being involved. In general this shows that we are too big. VIPCOAT wonderful opportunity. Stresslevel way too high. Look forward to vacation. Developement should not be done ad hoc in the first available code. Need to plan things more carefully before running of in different directions. We should not add new ideas as a PR without prior clarification on what it should do, where it belongs and if this is something we need to developed or if it already exists. **4** **Daniel** ChatGPT is transformative. I am missing the use case that I can show that really demonstrates the use of our work. Has been enjoyable to work on premod stuff. Unpleasent but motivating SEP customer review. Should present SEP to the team. **3.5** **Casper** - small internal development groups - overall team/technology direction/purpose - return to idea of TEAM4.0 Enhanced Proposal (TEP) / development roadmap for the overall technology stack - Shift development reasoning from a POV of "project deliverables" to a more general development roadmap? - Shift to having a "stable" and "develop" branch on (especially) developing repositories? - Product Owners = Repository/technology "owners"/responsible Feel left out of some discussions. End up being part of it, but feel caught in the middle between J and T. Confusing and disruptive. Need people to do the things and not just talk about it. Still some issues about how we deal with development, trying to stay out of it a bit while on partial leave. **4** **Alfredo** Focused on other projects last two weeks. When I did have time I worked in Dome4.0 trying to get into the provenance part. Almost have an example running. Talked to Jesper about tasks. Got some tasks that might not be relevant anymore after todays discussion (mostly about moving things from DLite to Tripper). Machine learning in other projects that can be considered investment into the future with Matchmaker. **3.5** **Kristine** Very unproductive last two weeks. Proposal with Sylvain is challenging. Don't feel that I am able to contribute that much. Still not finished with a dome task. Going to work on that tomorrow. OntoTrans report CUDS2DLite and will look at that today before the meeting with Bijan. Still missing the vision and not feeling very useful. But very nice to have Treesa back!! Response from Sylvain: You are useful! Very good to have someone to discuss with. Don't be shy - writing something is better than nothing especially when partners are not writing their task. Then we review together. **2** **Francesca** Difficult period lately. Hopefully getting better soon <3 Very worried about OpenModel; few follow-ups. No proper project management from the consortium side of things. D5.5 is quite challenging, but getting worked through (slowly). It seems it is both our technology that is difficult to use as well as other partners' technology and tools, making for very slow progression. Difficulty processing what to do, how to contribute, and what matters in ???. Positive about having Treesa back to support also on a more management side. We need to get the Team back on track, there seems to be little communication about what is being done. Sub-groups are happening: bad. Unclear things are difficult to see sharply. See the need for splitting off a group that really does the technology stack planning. What is the point of EMMOntoPy if only Jesper and Francesca are working on it? **2.5** --- Sylvain: Concerning OpenModel. Has anyone done any (SINTEF) progression procedures? This might be useful when taking it "higher". Having a more formal discussion with consortium partners, for example. We need to ensure OpenModel (and all our projects) delivers as expected, especially from our side. These projects are usually the foundation for new proposals. I.e., if they fail we cannot write "proper" new proposals, nor can we expect to "win" the calls if we do not deliver in general. --- Need a clarification on how we work with implementation (or not) of new ideas. ## *Q1:* What are the things that went well during the last sprint? ## *Q2:* What are the things that could have gone better during the last sprint? ## *Q3:* What did you learn during the last sprint on a…. ### *a)* Domain specific level? ### *b)* intra-personal level? ## *Q4:* What are your plans for the next sprint? ## *Q5:* Select your team performance and satisfaction score from the following. Don’t forget to justify your answer. | **Satisfaction-level and Value** | SG | AE | JF | KW | TJ | BTL | CWA | TH | FLB | DM | average | min | max | |----------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|-----|-----|----|-----|----|---------|-----|-----| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Value | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Justification (for next) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Very Happy (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Happy (4) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Okay (3) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sad (2) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Very Sad (1) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## *Q6:* Would you like to specify any other priority detail(s)/points which could be useful for the development of your product (if any)?