Conversation on the Draft ToC (issued on 27/7/09)

This new conversation intends to capture and record the debate within the FInES RR TF. And this is the "opening" posting, aiming at welcoming the participation of the TF members.

By using the Forum we will keep in a compact way the different issues and positions originated by the members of the TF, while the (external) contributors for the moment will continue to use the email communications.

In order to maintain a certain order, we will use other conversations of other topics. For instance, organizational issues.

Cheers, Michele

<< Reply to the mail of Samia received on 10/08/09 >>

Dear Samia,

thank you very much for your mail and the very articulated content it carries within.

If I well get your points, you provide some suggestions both on content, structure of the ToC and contributors. I agree that the three levels cannot be separated one from another. Nevertheless, I think that now we need to focus on one level at the time, to try to converge on a shared outcome. In particular, the suggestions should be concentrated on the proposed articulation of the Draft ToC, with indications on how to change it. For instance suppress a section, merge it with another section, etc.

The text under each section is provided simply to give a hint of the intended meaning (i.e., content) of each section. This approach is largely inadequate and I fully subscribe the proposal of Man-Sze to have a ConCall before launching the final ToC, jointly with the request for contribution: in terms of content, this time.

In conclusion, I think that your mail touched several important issues that we need to look at carefully. To make our life easier, I tried to summarise your points in a sort of "shopping list" (surely sketchy, accepting the risk to be exiguous). Please amend the list so that it reflects your actual thinking, and then we will discuss it in the nect ConCall.

Best regards,

-- Michele

PS - I think that it will be more practical if we will use the Forum that COIN has activated for out TF. I will copy this mail as a post therein.

---------------------- Summary of the points in the mail of Samia (v.0.1 - tentative) ------------------------

*Essential points:*

-        a strong focus on social-economic values and impacts may restrict contribution from people and also projects of the cluster

-        suggest maintaining the TOC a bit more general, in order to enable people to feel somehow free to contribute more

_Specific suggested points_:

-        brief review on the strategy and the objectives of the cluster up to now

-        new vision of the Cluster

-        focus on global values rather than technical approaches

-        how future internet will help to overcome a (this) crisis

-        how to overcome the gap between the research and the real business

-        derive another category of values, by means of sustainability…

-        allow projects (past & running) to report on achieved results and criticalities, at [Ch. 5 &1]

o   research level

o   adoption level

o   acceptance level

-        add a dedicated section for SMEs, industrial partners, and end-users, where they report:

o   challenges still open

o   the role of future internet

o   why end-products of research projects usually will not be adopted

-        solution space has to include: socio-economical development model, cloud-computing, bio-computing…

--------------------------------------- Original message -------------------------------------------

Drissi, Samia ha scritto:

Dear colleagues,

 

First of all, I would like to apologize for not having contributed yet, since I was on holiday and have almost no internet access.

 

Further I would like to thank you all for your very precious efforts up to now.

 

Related to the TOC I may have some comments on that especially concerning the structure.

According to the actual structure, we perceive a strong focus on social-economic values and impacts.

Even a socio-economical development model may be the hype and the future approach, how to overcome challenges still being faced, people and also projects of the cluster may feel very restricted while contributing.

 

As far as I understood a RR is aiming amongst others to identify the vision and the future strategy of the FInES Cluster and provide support for the WP.

For that I would like to suggest maintaining the TOC a bit more general, in order to enable people to feel somehow free to contribute more, and to feel quit involved in the thinking process.

 

Thus I think it would be useful to make first a kind of introduction as brief review for the strategy and the objectives of the cluster up to now. Furthermore introduce the new vision of the cluster, by means of global values rather than technical approaches, e.g. the aim that future internet would help somehow to overcome a crisis as the current one, or to overcome the gap between the research and the real business, in terms of end products which once resulting from funded projects remain mostly just on prototyping level not adopted by the end-users….Based on that we could then derive another category of values, ba means of sustainability…

 

On a next stage involve the running and the past projects, in order to deliver statement on achieved results and critical outcomes, addressing both the research level and the product-adoption and acceptance level, while keeping track of the objectives of the cluster.

These both issues correspond mostly to chapter5 in the TOC: “Assessment of key achievements of past projects and beyond”, combined with chapter1: “Vision and Values”

 

Then it would be very interesting to insert a session for SME’s and industrials being member of the cluster or consortia partners as end-users, who comment from their point of view on that, by describing the challenges they are still facing, how they estimate the role of future internet, and why end-products of research projects usually will not be adopted.

 

Based on the results of the previous sessions, including the vision of the cluster, the contributions of the projects and the statements of the SME’s, we could then make a kind of analysis, corresponding in that case to chapter2 and 3 in the current TOC, and according to that derive the solution space (including probably the socio-economical development model, cloud-computing, bio-computing…)

 

I think in this way people could see the logical interdependencies between the different chapters, and get the feeling they are actively involved, rather than to deal with a set of terms, thinking they have been imposed by the task force team, since corresponding to our research fields.

So I have commented less on the content but may be the way we are presenting that.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you.

 

Best Regards,

Samia

test

Dear All,

I tried to make a single file containing the comments received so far. Please check if something is missing.

The file is organised as follows:

- inverse chronologicla order
- Heading for each message saying who sent it and when
- just below the heading, in red&blue color my guess of the gist of each message: one issue per line
- red lines are issues about content and not about ToC organization. In principles, to be considered in the Phase 2
- blue lines are suggestions about ToC organization

In the file, I tried to objectively report issues and comments, providing material for the discussion of Wednesday. Here I wish to anticipate
a first preliminary proposal of possible changes in the ToC:

- Sect.1 should include a definition of the domain of FInES
- Make Sect. 3 more specific. E.g. changing the title (e.g., Research Challengies in reaching the Grand Objectives) and importing the Future Enterprise subsection from Sect. 4
- Title of Sect. 4 (Solution space) is too generic. We may keep in Section 4 the more "enabling" and technology (including SB) oriented issues. This would clarify our need for technology that we address as "client", since it will be developed elsewhere (supposedly). Possible title: Enablig technologies and methodologies.
- We may add an Essential Glossary, to help: (i) defining the scope or the RR; (ii) avoid misunderstandings (at least, trying to...)

Cheers, Michele

Atch:
- contributors comments: excerpt with my observations
- Annotted document from Interop-VLab

The attachment of the collection of Comments and Contributions.

[only one attachment per post is possible. Therefore I had to post a new message only for the attachment]

Dear All,

just two titles changed:

Sect. 3, with a better focusing on the research challenges aiming at reaching the Grand Objectives
Sect. 4, aiming at identifying the more tech-meth issues to support the research of Sect. 3.

Summarising:

ToC

*Executive Summary*

*1. Vision and Values *

*2. Grand Objectives*

*3. Research challenges in reaching the Grand Objectives*

*4. Enabling technologies and methodologies *

*5. Assessment of key achievements of past projects and beyond *(SotA)**

*6. Conclusion and recommendations*