Download
1 / 12
120 likes | 226 Views
UBICOMP- RG : Bridging two communities. Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz and Nigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona. Agenda. Introduction Progress update Initial thoughts Next Steps Discussion Group Formation Seven Questions Charter Summary and Action Points .
E N D
UBICOMP-RG:Bridging two communities Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz andNigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona GGF 11 Ad-hoc Meeting
Agenda • Introduction • Progress update • Initial thoughts • Next Steps Discussion • Group Formation • Seven Questions • Charter • Summary and Action Points
Why this RG? • We believe there is significant synergy between the Grid & Ubicomp • Benefits to Ubicomp • Linking these communities (seeing further…) • Achieving reuse, increasing scale of experiments (standardisation) • Benefits to the Grid • Short term: challenging/ novel requirements (dynamic, low power, mobile, embedded, autonomous, etc. new use cases) • Long term: cross-over technology/ research (new tools, novel forms of interaction, HCI/ ethnography, resources etc.)
Progress update • Following last BOF (GGF10) • Solicited contributions from others via the mailing list – low response! • Initiated discussions with Ubicomp community • Following 1st UbiSys at Ubicomp 2003, have proposed follow up workshop to raise awareness • Written IEEE Pervasive ‘Horizons’ article espousing our vision (on our web site):http://ubigrid.lancs.ac.uk • This has led to some initial interest
Perceptions • Strong consensus regarding the importance of interoperability • However, there were doubts about the suitability of Grid technologies: • “Why the Grid? The Grid is not catering for our needs!” • Grid is one of many possible platforms • Solutions targeted at high-performance distributed computing • Heavyweight (OGSI & GT3) • Why not just use Web services?
Plan • Create a ‘first stop’ for those seeking to develop Ubicomp Grid Applications • Best practice dissemination • Software tools, FAQs etc. • Ability to ‘raise issues’ for Ubigrid-RG
Reflections • Initial questions • Research focus - lack of immediate driving application (in Grid), can RGs work in responsive mode? • Do we have the right people? • Natural scepticism about adopting outside technology, so • Going will be slow initially (proof of concept, grid-forge style community building), need to seed • However • Increased awareness could lead to fruitful collaborations
Aims for today • (In increasing order of) Interest • Tracking the group’s progress • Taskforce membership • Acting as liaisons (identify/ liaise with related RG/WGs) • Positions within the group • Show of hands… • Next steps? Discuss. • 7 questions?
Evaluation Criteria 7 questions (from GFD-C.3) • Is the scope of the proposed group sufficiently focused? • Are the topics that the group plans to address clear and relevant for the Grid research? • Will the formation of the group foster (consensus–based) work that would not be done otherwise? • Do the group’s activities overlap inappropriately with those of another GGF/IETF/W3C? • Are there sufficient interest and expertise in the group’s topic, with at least several people willing to expend the effort? • Does a base of interested consumers appear to exist for the planned work? • Does the GGF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology?
