1 / 12

UBICOMP- RG : Bridging two communities

UBICOMP- RG : Bridging two communities. Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz and Nigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona. Agenda. Introduction Progress update Initial thoughts Next Steps Discussion Group Formation Seven Questions Charter Summary and Action Points .

kimn
Télécharger la présentation

UBICOMP- RG : Bridging two communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UBICOMP-RG:Bridging two communities Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz andNigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona GGF 11 Ad-hoc Meeting

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Progress update • Initial thoughts • Next Steps Discussion • Group Formation • Seven Questions • Charter • Summary and Action Points

  3. IP POLICY STATEMENT

  4. Why this RG? • We believe there is significant synergy between the Grid & Ubicomp • Benefits to Ubicomp • Linking these communities (seeing further…) • Achieving reuse, increasing scale of experiments (standardisation) • Benefits to the Grid • Short term: challenging/ novel requirements (dynamic, low power, mobile, embedded, autonomous, etc. new use cases) • Long term: cross-over technology/ research (new tools, novel forms of interaction, HCI/ ethnography, resources etc.)

  5. Progress update • Following last BOF (GGF10) • Solicited contributions from others via the mailing list – low response! • Initiated discussions with Ubicomp community • Following 1st UbiSys at Ubicomp 2003, have proposed follow up workshop to raise awareness • Written IEEE Pervasive ‘Horizons’ article espousing our vision (on our web site):http://ubigrid.lancs.ac.uk • This has led to some initial interest

  6. Perceptions • Strong consensus regarding the importance of interoperability • However, there were doubts about the suitability of Grid technologies: • “Why the Grid? The Grid is not catering for our needs!” • Grid is one of many possible platforms • Solutions targeted at high-performance distributed computing • Heavyweight (OGSI & GT3) • Why not just use Web services?

  7. Plan • Create a ‘first stop’ for those seeking to develop Ubicomp Grid Applications • Best practice dissemination • Software tools, FAQs etc. • Ability to ‘raise issues’ for Ubigrid-RG

  8. Reflections • Initial questions • Research focus - lack of immediate driving application (in Grid), can RGs work in responsive mode? • Do we have the right people? • Natural scepticism about adopting outside technology, so • Going will be slow initially (proof of concept, grid-forge style community building), need to seed • However • Increased awareness could lead to fruitful collaborations

  9. Aims for today • (In increasing order of) Interest • Tracking the group’s progress • Taskforce membership • Acting as liaisons (identify/ liaise with related RG/WGs) • Positions within the group • Show of hands… • Next steps? Discuss. • 7 questions?

  10. Actions

  11. Evaluation Criteria 7 questions (from GFD-C.3) • Is the scope of the proposed group sufficiently focused? • Are the topics that the group plans to address clear and relevant for the Grid research? • Will the formation of the group foster (consensus–based) work that would not be done otherwise? • Do the group’s activities overlap inappropriately with those of another GGF/IETF/W3C? • Are there sufficient interest and expertise in the group’s topic, with at least several people willing to expend the effort? • Does a base of interested consumers appear to exist for the planned work? • Does the GGF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology?

  12. END - THANKS FOR ATTENDING

More Related