1 / 22

Knowledge Technologies 2002-2006

Knowledge Technologies 2002-2006. Scope & focus in 2003 Brian Macklin Knowledge Management & Content Creation DG Information Society. The objective. The vision : the Web as a semantically-annotated resource shared by humans, software agents & networked devices Two intertwined goals :

sidone
Download Presentation

Knowledge Technologies 2002-2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Knowledge Technologies2002-2006 Scope & focus in 2003 Brian Macklin Knowledge Management & Content CreationDG Information Society

  2. The objective • The vision: the Web as a semantically-annotated resource shared by humans, software agents & networked devices • Two intertwined goals: • basic research: “understand” content, master knowledge embedded in multimedia objects • applied research: enable smarter, next-generation Web applications • From long-term research through to exemplary applicative showcases • Strong multidisciplinarity with many constituent disciplines & technologies

  3. Work-programme 2003-2004 Objective: To develop semantic-based and context-aware systems to acquire, organise, process, share and use the knowledge embedded in multimedia content. Research will aim to maximise automation of the complete knowledge lifecycleand achieve semantic interoperability between Web resources and services.

  4. 2 main research themes • Semantic-enabled systems & servicesfor the next-generation Web(s) • semantic Webs within and across organisations, communities of interest … • smart Web services • Knowledge-based adaptive systems • reasoning over / acting on large volumes of dynamic data and information for “anytime-anywhere inferencing” • Foundational research component-level research system-level integration

  5. IST Programme 2002-2006 • European challenges • Transnational partnerships • Complementary skills • Critical mass of resources hence ... Focus, Excellence & Impact

  6. Instruments: Rationale • Higher integration and building critical mass • Realising ERA • Simplifications of procedures • Larger autonomy • higher responsibility for the consortium • Higher flexibility

  7. Use of FP6 instruments • IPs • up to 4 years, 5-15 Meuro (EU funding) • NoEs • up to 5 years, 3-6 Meuro • STRPs • up to 3 years, 1-3 Meuro • SSAs (specific support actions) • up to 3 years, 1-2 Meuro • room for both old & new instruments • > 60% of budget earmarked for newinstruments

  8. Integrated Projects - purpose • Designed to support research that is …..objective and result driven • clearly defined objectives and results • Each IP should • integrate the types of activities needed to obtain the goals • integrate the critical mass of resources needed to obtain the goals • integrate all elements of technology chain to attain high-impact goals • support industry-academia collaboration including SME’s

  9. Networks of Excellence (NoE) - objectives • To reinforce scientific and technological excellence • By integrating research capacities across Europe. • To progress knowledge on a particular theme • To act as a “Virtual Centre of Excellence”

  10. NoE - main features • “Virtual” centre of excellence • “Joint Programme of Activity” (JPA) (RTD, training, transfer, mobility... ) • established or emerging fields • Size • Several M€ per year • Participants • minimum of 3: Universities, Research Labs, Industrial Labs • a “critical mass” of key actors

  11. Partner 2 Partner 1 Partner 2 Partner 2 Partner1 Integrating activities “Binding” Partner1 Partner 4 Partner 4 Partner 4 Partner 3 Partner 3 Partner 3 RTD activities in Europe with the NoE (the JPA) Coordinated NoE - the JPA for integrating/shaping research The NoE field RTD activities in Europe before the NoE(today)

  12. What kind of project for KT?

  13. Partnerships • consortium • IPs 4-10 partners, from 3+ countries • NoEs 4 “core” partners min., from 3+ countries • STRPs 4-6 partners, from 3+ countries • cohesive agenda; competent, committed & reliable partners • complementarity: cover all areas you need • duplication of competence • Necessary for NoEs • Acceptable for IPs where dictated by project needs • industry/SME/academia/NAS participation: as dictated by project needs

  14. Sound costing adds to credibility Financial Packaging • project funding commensurate with expected results & impact • funding of partners depends on individual role & input • partners’ input: labour, know-how, facilities • fair cost projections, no double billing • choose reliable (ie financially sound) partners

  15. up to 10-15% of project effort! Coordination • project leader(s) • proven management skills • international project experience • coordinator’s functions • interface consortium-EC • financial administration • contract signatory • coordinator & partners • QA’ed reporting, against schedule

  16. Using the new instruments • do not artificially create an IP! • an IP should be THE project in the target area • an ambitious & progressive endeavour • with clearly defined milestones & checkpoints • appropriate use in this sector: not 30 Meuros, nor 3 Meuros; typically 6-12 Meuros, more where justified by scope & impact • an NoE should be interdisciplinary, include an industry section and / or a user section

  17. 2003 Calls • 1st call = Knowledge Technologies • 55+ Meuro; background technical document available • 2nd call = Cross-media Digital Content • 55+ Meuro; background document published in due course

  18. Schedule of 1st call • first call expected in Dec. 2002, closing late April 2003 • evaluation around mid-May=> experts wanted! • hearings in June • negotiations until Sep / Oct • contract awarding in Nov / Dec • projects due to start in Dec / Jan 2004 Highly competitive & demanding process …

  19. Likely outcome of 2003 calls • fewer, bigger projects wrt. FP5 • 100+ meuro available • 4-6 IPs • 3-4 NoEs • 8-12 STRPs • 1-3 SSAs • some 20 proposals likely to be retainedfor funding … highly selective process! • proposals cutting across knowledge / content / interface technologies are welcomed

  20. Some tips • have a look at complex, multi-party projects in science & industry • do not artificially adapt a proposal to a strategic objective • respond to all the evaluation criteria, not justthe scientific & technical ones • pay attention to using the full range of activities allowable for the new instruments • give realistic cost / resource estimates • pay extra attention to co-ordination of large projects; ensure that project management expertise is available Think like an evaluator!!!

  21. Conclusion • preserve your credibility: select one proposal and make it win! • ensure that the proposal brings outkey innovations • full depth of participation rather than long list of organisation names • critical mass: avoid the “1 FTE per partner” trap • check relevance of your ideas with EC staff, at an early stage

  22. Stay in touch! • Main IST Web site: • www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm • FP6 reference documents & guides: • www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/ • europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html • Knowledge Technologies Web site: • www.cordis.lu/ist/ka3 • www.ktweb.org • National contact points: • www.cordis.lu/fp5/src/ncps.htm • EC staff in Luxembourg: • general: infso-kit@cec.eu.int • specific:franco.mastroddi@cec.eu.int

More Related