Here is the final version of the full proposal, submitted on 27th January. It is not exactly the same as the latest version in the wiki, because some last-minute changes went only into the online COST application form. Thank you very much to all those who helped. –Simon.
The format of the full proposal is specified in this document.
The structure is reproduced here, with a link from each section to a page where we can edit and discuss the text.
The page limits specified in each section have to be understood relative to a specified document format, which is basically 12pt with 2cm margins all round. The final submission is via an online form.
Here is some text that fills one page in the required .doc format.
People writing about each theme (within Section D but probably also C):
Foundations: Ugo de'Liguoro (co-ordinator?), Mario Bravetti, Michele Boreale, Lucia Acciai, Jakob Rehof
Security: Ilaria Castellani, Hans Hüttel (co-ordinator), Michele Boreale, Lucia Acciai, Marco Giunti
Languages: Giuseppe Castagna (co-ordinator), Sophia Drossopoulou, Luca Padovani, Vasco Vasconcelos
Tools: António Ravara (co-ordinator?), Kohei Honda, Nobuko Yoshida
Applications: Thomas Hildebrandt (co-ordinator?), Kohei Honda, Nobuko Yoshida, Jakob Rehof
Other aspects:
Background: Simon Gay, Luca Padovani
Here is the draft from Monday 23rd January.
Here are the assessment guidelines.
A proposal on formal verification of object-oriented systems.
(i.e. the proposal; if successful, it becomes the technical annex of the formal Memorandum of Understanding)
A. ABSTRACT
B. BACKGROUND
E. ORGANISATION
F. TIMETABLE
Maximum 10 pages (excluding Part A)
General remark: The main purpose of the second part of the proposal is to facilitate the assessment of the proposal and the nomination of National Representatives to the Management Committee (MC). This part will not be element of the MoU. To some extent, however, the information contained in it may also be useful, when the Action starts and a detailed work programme is being planned. Note that part A (List of Experts) is mandatory as the information given here is important for the later nominations to the MC.
The structure of the Additional Information is not standardised and you are at liberty to structure it in any logical way. A suggested guideline is given hereafter under the following subheadings:
Please observe the requirements of this guide, which is part of the documentation for COST Action proposals.
Please add comments here, or in the discussion below each section.
Simon: There are some comments from Ilaria below, which were somewhere else on the wiki and I don't think we have explicitly incorporated them yet.
Ilaria: 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. Simon: I think we have said something similar to this.
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. Simon: Do we have existing programmes for dual-country PhDs? Where are they?
Ilaria: some possible programmes (old links to be checked):
- Hubert Curien programme between France and Portugal.
- Marie Curie Actions, Initial Training Networks (ITN) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/mariecurieactions/itn_en.html
- Joint Phd France-UK: http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Joint-PhD-avec-le-Royaume-Uni.html (ask Matthew for more)
- Joint PhD France-Italy: ask Mariangiola, Beppe, Davide…
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.? Simon: I think we could include ideas like this in the longer work programme section (Part II). We don't need to have a particular case study in mind at the moment, but we could say that during the early stages of the Action we will identify one or more case studies, and then we will work on them during the later stages of the Action.