M01 Project Definition
Due Date: Monday Feb 1, 2026, Wednesday Jan 27, 2026
To initiate the project, students must first define their systems scope by selecting a variation specifying a user persona and key use cases, developing a conceptual schema, and meticulously planning a evaluation test set for comprehensive evaluation
- Choose variation A - Knowledge Graph Intelligence, B - Research Advisor , or C - Scientific/Business Discovery Assistant and a corresponding corpus (set of documents).
- Define user persona and key use cases. Follow the examples from the project description. Add your own touch.
Submission
Upload your text document as PDF file to iCollege under Assignment M01 Project Definition - Submissions. (This is a group submission, only one document per team.)
Rubric
| Criterion | Weight (pts) | Excellent | Good | Satisfactory | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variation and Corpus Selection | 40 | 36–40: Variation (A/B/C) is clearly identified and tightly aligned with a well-justified corpus; the corpus description specifies document types, sources, time span, and approximate scale, and explains why it is appropriate for the chosen variation and business context. Any constraints (access, preprocessing, licensing) are explicitly stated and reasonable. | 28–35: Variation and corpus are appropriate and generally well aligned; corpus characteristics are described with minor gaps in detail (for example, incomplete discussion of scope or scale), but the choice is feasible and coherent with the project goals. | 20–27: Variation is specified and a corpus is named, but alignment to the variation or to realistic DAIS capabilities is only partially justified; key details about the corpus (types, coverage, or feasibility) are vague or missing. | 0–19: Variation is unclear, inconsistent, or missing; the corpus is poorly defined, obviously infeasible, or largely misaligned with the project (for example, not document-centric or not business relevant); justification is minimal or absent. |
| User Persona and Key Use Cases | 40 | 36–40: Persona is realistic and well developed (role, goals, context, decision environment, pain points) and is clearly grounded in the chosen variation and corpus; key use cases are specific, technically plausible, and show how DAIS meaningfully supports the persona’s workflows with nontrivial queries or tasks, going beyond simple keyword search and generic Q&A. | 28–35: Persona is plausible and relevant, with a generally clear description of role and goals, though some contextual details or pain points may be underdeveloped; use cases are mostly concrete and aligned with the variation and corpus, but limited in variety or depth or only partially highlight the need for an agentic system. | 20–27: Persona is defined but generic or loosely connected to the corpus and variation; use cases are high-level, somewhat repetitive, or close to generic search scenarios; the link between persona, use cases, and DAIS capabilities is only partially evident. | 0–19: Persona is missing, unrealistic for the corpus, or misaligned with the chosen variation; use cases are absent, trivial, or too vague to guide design and later evaluation. |