Declarative Systems & Software Engineering Newsletter
Issue 8 - 12th December 1994
Editor - Hugh Glaser
Contents:
- Editorial
- Today's Seminar
- Web News
- Seminar programme - Geetha
- FPIV day, London - Vicki Sivess
Now that the Newsletter comes out on the Web, it is most helpful
if any articles can be sent in html format.
The DSSE talk on Monday, 12th December at 13:00 will be
given by Peter Henderson.
Title: Process Modelling Group
The DSSE Group Page (http://louis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/dsse) has been updated, to
provide a leaner version. Comments welcome.
Those who sent me project information will find it
has moved onto other pages, currently owned by me.
The correct method is that you should have your own
project pages in your own .WWW, to which the Group page points.
If you want to leave it as it is, OK, but if you
want to provide you own page, or even take a copy of
the one I've done as a start, then please tell me.
- 12th Dec. Peter Henderson: "Process Modelling Group"
- 19th Dec. Christopher Pratten: His IBM Project - topic to be announced.
I spent last Wednesday at the FPIV day in London. Three things to note.
- A lot of time was spent on telling SMEs about euro initiatives to
encourage them to enter FPIV. Not so useful for me, but it tells me
that a consortium should probably try to include an SME, perhaps even
more so than previously.
- Anyone going to Brussels next week should take with them an
overhead as there will be a chance to stand up for about 1 min. and
say who you are and what you are doing.
- The most informative bit was about the long term research (LTR). It
was given by Mike Reeve, who sends his regards to everyone.
To use euro-speak, there are 3 modalities in the LTR programme: open,
reactive and proactive. All LTR calls will be done on a 2 phase basis.
In the first stage you should hand in about 6 pages of supporting
material (plus loads of forms of course!), followed by a longer case
for support (about 20 pages) if it gets through the first stage. The
second new feature about all LTR proposals is that it is no longer
mandatory to have an industrial partner. Instead, you have to
demonstrate its industrial relevance. This could be done by, say,
having a steering group with an industrial partner on, but it is left
vague on purpose. OK, about the 3 modalities then.
- Open LTR
In this section, the themes won't be prescribed and so
you and a euro partner can put forward any idea. It should have
industrial relevance in that at some time it will be able to be taken
up by industry ("taken up" rather than "exploited"), but there is no
immediate exploitation plan as with the rest of the programme. The six
pages will essentially describe a feasibility study to see if the idea
really will fly. The aim is to give a response within 4 weeks as to
whether it has been accepted. It is expected that grants will be no
more than 100K ecu and that the work will take about 6 months. It is
not intended to support an RA, but that the money should be used for
the proposers to buy teaching time, etc. so they can get on and do the
feasibility study. Based on that, the "real" application then goes in.
- Reactive LTR
This is reacting to the rest of the programme, and will
be on specific topics. Again, you hand in 6 pages, and then the longer
proposal 3 months later, if the first proposal passes.
- Proactive LTR
This is meant to be the real blue skies stuff, and to
set the framework for years ahead. The themes will be specified. At
present it looks as though the first call will be later next year on 2
themes: microelectronics and interfaces to the information
infrastructure. It will be in 2 phases but they haven't quite worked
out how the proposal mechanism will work.
One final important aspect of open LTR. One reason it has
this name is because, from 15 Feb., proposals will be accepted on a
continuous basis.
Copy deadline: 5pm Friday for Monday's newsletter, but send the articles
any time.
Hugh Glaser
Declarative Systems & Software Engineering Group
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton