For Project 3, I first used the schema as an introduction to the public work proposal genre. Once I had a general feel for content, I used the schema as a list for all the components I needed to address in my proposal. I found the schema to be appropriate for my proposal in that it contained all the pertinent topics that would be addressed when petitioning for a road improvement- any further details would be semantics or pertain to a specific proposal.
One aspect of the schema that was very useful was the level of detail in each section- it made it very clear what was required. Breaking down elements such as feasibility into economic and environmental components removed guesswork as to what the content should be focused on. However, there were other sections where I felt there was a lot of overlap and had a hard time differentiating between them. For example, when addressing the who and how aspects, I felt as though I was repeating that the MassDOT were the ones in need of funding and that the project would happen if the MassDOT received funding.
Overall the biggest problem I ran into was the variance in structure between the proposals put forward by the original Group 3; there were large differences between the length and number of attributes included in each member’s proposal. This made it difficult for me to gage the importance of each section relative to others or the general length it should be.
The peer review process helped me gain a slightly better idea as to how each section should be differentiated from one another. Not having been part of the original design team for the schema made is noticeably harder to use it and understand the sections. It was mostly through examples and peer feedback that I was able to gain a more in-depth understanding of it. I would like to improve the schema through better clarifying which parties involved (who) should be mentioned in each section (receiving vs. giving party).
