Strict Standards: Declaration of Doku_Renderer_metadata::table_open() should be compatible with Doku_Renderer::table_open($maxcols = NULL, $numrows = NULL, $pos = NULL) in /var/www/operationalsemantics.net/public_html/behaviouralwiki/inc/parser/metadata.php on line 24

Strict Standards: Declaration of Doku_Renderer_metadata::table_close() should be compatible with Doku_Renderer::table_close($pos = NULL) in /var/www/operationalsemantics.net/public_html/behaviouralwiki/inc/parser/metadata.php on line 24

Discussion forum

To take part in the discussion, write here. Please start your comments with your name, so that we can identify you.

Hans: I think the COST forum could be used as a way for us to have another edition of the workshop and maybe turn it into a recurring event. What do you think?

Simon: Certainly we should apply for a COST action. I think that an annual workshop would be within the scope of COST. The documentation says that a typical budget for a COST is €100,000 per year for four years. That would be plenty for a fully-funded workshop, and some other activities. I have looked at the list of existing COST actions and there is nothing in an overlapping or similar topic.

Simon: As well as funding workshops, providing funding for PhD students to travel between sites might be a nice idea.

Sophia Student (and in general researhers) visiting other groups for a short time is supported through “short term Scientifc Missions”. I think that we would be required to have a panel which reviews the applications, and then evalauted the mission post factum. i thibk this is a good approach.

Simon: Now I have registered on the COST website. For a preliminary proposal, there is a simple online form. The main part of the application is limited to 10,000 characters and asks for the following sections: (1) Background,Problems; (2) Benefits; (3) Objectives, deliverables and expected scientific impact; (4) Scientific programme and innovation; (5) Organisation.

There is some information about what is meant by these sections here: http://w3.cost.esf.org/index.php?id=833#1686. I don't know whether you have to register and log in before you can see that page.

The deadline for preliminary proposals is 30th September. Invitations for full proposals will be issued on 25th November and the submission deadline for full proposals is 27th January 2012. Final decisions should be made at the end of March, and then successful projects are supposed to start 3 months later, i.e. July 2012.

I don't think we have to define a budget in the preliminary proposal.

We need at least 5 countries; we already have more than that. The preliminary proposal lets us list up to 10 participants; the full proposal would contain a complete list. However, it seems that preliminary proposals are assessed without revealing the names of the participants. Also, I think the idea of a COST action is that further participants should be able to join later (feel free to model this in your favourite behavioural type system…), so the exact list of participants is probably not crucial.

Sophia yes, the rules are that any country can join the COST after ti has been accepted.

Kohei Belatedly I have started to read about COST. Given the deadline is at the end of September, it is good to start soon. Naturally I am happy to collaborate with all to contribute to the editing of the proposal, based on whatever has been done.

Some links I found which might be useful:

http://www.cost.eu/about_cost/mission (what is COST?)

http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions (domains at a glance)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq (FAQ)

Among this FAQ the interesting pages are 2-4 to 2-15. Some of them I looked at:

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-4 (need I lobby)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-5 (how it is evaluated)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-6 (documents to read, refers to the “guideline”)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-8 (further tips)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-9 (same)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-11 (same)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-12 (anonymity)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-13 (feedback)

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq#answer2-14 (publication)

There can be other important items, if so please share. This FAQ is very well-organised and may show a good morale of the COST office (just a guess). Still some of their answers may be begging further questions: it looks we can ask our “national representatives”, in UK a government official, if things are not clear.

Anyway, we can get basic ideas, I believe.

In brief our initial proposal is evaluated inside the office, so it should be something clear and understandable for scientists in general and well-informed publics.

The guideline documents are in:

http://www.cost.eu/participate/guidelines

There are several documents linked there, among which it looks (I have not read in detail) these two seem to be about the scientific content of projects/proposals:

http://www.cost.eu/module/download/9607 (guideline for assessment, at the end there are assessment criteria)

http://www.cost.eu/module/download/9608 (how the project is monitored)

The fist pdf file (9607) is useful because it contains the assessment criteria used by the reviewers.

I will now move to the proposal document.

Ilaria (December 1, 2011) Concerning the full proposal, I'm willing to work on the scientific programme, WG2 Security, with all the interested people. I don't think that the term “security” is a buzzword, but simply that its use in our short proposal was too vague for the reviewers to make sense of it. I'm specifically interested in information flow control (which is an important aspect of both data confidentiality and data integrity) in session calculi, and in studying session type systems and semantic properties of information flow safety and information flow security for such calculi. If any of you are interested in these or other aspects of security, it would be nice to discuss and join forces to write this section of the proposal.

Ilaria (December 10, 2011) I definitely think the research programme is fundamental, even if COST doesn't fund it as such.

Concerning relevance, impact and other criteria, I'd like to suggest three points that we could make in order to match some of the criteria recalled by Luis:

1) Emphasize the fact that research on behavioural types originated in Europe and was mainly pursued in Europe so far. Hence, BETTY could improve the visibility of BT both as a “european subject” and as an increasingly relevant one, and as a consequence also help it spread elsewhere.

2) Say that we will try to use existing programmes for joint supervision of PhD theses from two different european countries. These theses, co-supervised by two BETTY sites on the subject of BT, would certainly benefit from the existence of our network. We could add that we will apply equal opportunities criteria in choosing our PhD candidates, e.g by favouring women in case of two candidates of equivalent quality.

3) Try to identify some existing (or prospective) case-studies which could have a specific social impact at the level of the EU itself. For instance, would our theories/techniques be appropriate to deal with: (i) a european election/referendum system where all european citizens vote at the same time, either in their country of origin or in their country of residence but not in both, this being dynamically determined at the moment of voting (and not decided before Dec 31 of the previous year as it is the case today, if I remember well), (ii) a unified european health system that any EU citizen could recourse to, from whatever place in Europe, (iii) a coordinated european railway system with synchronised trains, unified ticket fares, the possibility to issue electronic tickets to travel between any two european cities etc.?

 
discussion.txt · Last modified: 2011/12/10 01:05 by ilaria
 
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