Differences

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

discussion [2011/12/01 14:57]
ilaria
discussion [2011/12/10 01:05] (current)
ilaria
Line 76: Line 76:
  
 ** 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 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