Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

cost-background [2011/09/12 11:21]
hans
cost-background [2011/09/12 11:22] (current)
hans [Important Facts]
Line 1: Line 1:
 +The following refers to [[cost|the draft text of the COST proposal]].
 +
 ==== Important Facts ==== ==== Important Facts ====
  
Line 6: Line 8:
  
 Body of the proposal should have 10000 characters maximum (excluding title and abstract) Body of the proposal should have 10000 characters maximum (excluding title and abstract)
 +
 +==== Directives (mainly from Simon's emails) ====
 +
 +According to http://w3.cost.eu/index.php?id=833#1686 and to http://www.cost.esf.org/participate/guidelines, the proposal should have exactly the following top-level headings, with the content detailed below:
 +
 +1. BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS
 +
 +2. BENEFITS
 +
 +3. OBJECTIVES, DELIVERABLES AND EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
 +
 +4. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME AND INNOVATION
 +
 +5. ORGANISATION 
 +
 +BACKGROUND should start with a very clear statement of the problems we want to solve and why they are important. This statement must start from practical problems relevant to society. Technical challenges in computer science, which are what we really want to work on, arise because of the inadequacy of current computing technology in solving society's problems.
 +
 +BENEFITS should be about how research in this area will benefit society
 +
 +OBJECTIVES should be both:
 +
 +(a) the objectives of the research programme (which we are working on
 +without the resources of COST), which the COST will help to achieve; and
 +
 +(b) the objectives of the COST itself, such as organizing workshops,
 +funding PhD mobility, producing surveys or reports, etc. 
 +
 +SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME has to be what we are doing already through our nationally-funded projects. (Note that I don't think this nationally-funded research has to take the form of grants from national funding agencies; it could be the research we do using the resources that we have in our institutions. It just means that we are doing it without resources from COST). The working groups should then follow from a sub-division of the scientific problems; then we can find the detailed
 +objectives, deliverable and work programme for each section.
 +
 +WORKING GROUPS. the ones currently listed are one possible structure. However, it seems to me that security is of a different character than the others. Security needs to be considered in relation to foundations, languages and applications. So another possibility is to have a security working group, and three others of similar character. For example: evolution, progress&fairness, verification. This would give us a structure similar to a suggestion by Sophia Drossopoulou (SEE BELOW). Then, for example, the security working group would look at foundational calculi that include security, make sure that language designs for security are working from appropriate foundations, coordinate between language designs and tool implementations, and consider case studies for security.
 +
 +Part of the added value of the COST would then be to ensure a flow of ideas from foundations, to languages and tools, to applications. 
 +
  
 ==== Initial comments ==== ==== Initial comments ====
 
cost-background.txt · Last modified: 2011/09/12 11:22 by hans
 
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license:CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
Recent changes RSS feed Donate Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki