[appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached
Krishna Sankar
ksankar at cisco.com
Wed Mar 16 16:00:49 CST 2005
I do think there is an intersection (as opposed to synergy / convergence)
with grid and intelligent environment which includes appliance aggregation,
sensor networks and so forth. Sensor networks as a grid substrate itself is
a good idea. Would like to see what discussions went on at the sensor
network BOF.
But sensor networks (with all it's charm and complexity) is only part of the
equation. The ability to aggregate sensor inputs (remember this is an
asymmetrical flow of information i.e. from the edges to the core of a
network, so aggregation, filtering et al is slightly different) and to make
intelligent inferences, still depends on the "devices".
To make the story short, yep, we should explore a new RG/or a
kindlier-gentler-improved RG which includes the sensor network domain.
Just my 0.02$ (which is not that much worth now-a-days compared to 0.02
euros :o))
Cheers
-k.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
| | Krishna Sankar, Distinguished Engineer
:|: :|:
:|||: :|||: - Disruptive Technologies & Architectures
..:|||||||:.....:|||||||:.. - Security, Mobility & Integration
Cisco Systems Inc - Mobile-Asymmetric-Composable-Embedded
Networks
(Ph) 408-853-8475 ksankar at cisco.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Things are only impossible only until they're not ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-appagg-rg at ggf.org
> [mailto:owner-appagg-rg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Cees de Laat
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:21 AM
> To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor'
> Cc: appagg-rg at ggf.org
> Subject: [appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached
>
> Please note that the mail from David DeRoure was addressed to
> me and we (the AD's) will ultimately select if we want to see
> a recharter or closing and going through a bof procedure.
> Currently I must say we prefer the clean BOF way for a new
> charter combining interests from ubiquitous computing and
> appagg but nothing is carved in stone yet.
>
> Best regards,
> Cees.
>
> At 11:07 AM +0200 3/16/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:
> >Dear Ian,
> >
> >Yes there was some interest (20 attended) and there was
> discussion in
> >the end. I have presented some results we obtained at Patras
> Univ. and
> >it all went well.
> >
> >There are two options as suggested by David De Roure (see also his
> >attached
> >email):
> >1. complete the documents described in the charter and
> conclude the rg
> >and get a pad on the back, or 2. Restructure the charter and
> increase
> >the scope of the rg to include ubiquitous computing, artificial
> >intelligence, sensor networks and such to get more people
> involved and
> >increase the engagement and consensus in APPAGG. We could
> even call it
> >UBICOM-RG if that is the general consensus.
> >
> >I favour the second approach as it will set us up faster to keep
> >working on our research and avoid the BOF stages. In the meantime we
> >should try to generate interest in this work. I am attending
> a workshop
> >on Ubiquitous Computing in Edinburgh next may and I am also
> trying to
> >get in touch with CoreGRID who have similar interests. If we
> generate
> >enough interest we can do either of the 2 scenarios described above.
> >
> >What do you think?? Can you help??
> >Regards
> > -Dimitris-
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ian Taylor [mailto:Ian.J.Taylor at cs.cardiff.ac.uk]
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM
> >To: Omer F. Rana
> >Cc: dlioupis at cti.gr
> >Subject: Re: Minutes attached
> >
> >Excellent - what was the outcome? - was there much interest?
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >On 14 Mar 2005, at 08:41, Omer F. Rana wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Good presentation today for the Appliances group. Minutes are
> >> attached.
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Omer
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/index.html /
> >> work-fax:+44(0)29-2087-4598
> >> work:+44(0)29-2087-5542 / other:+44(0)7956-299981 / distributed
> >> collaborative computing / room n2.14 / school of computer
> science /
> >> cardiff university
> >> queen's buildings / newport road / cardiff cf24 3aa / wales / uk
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> >> <appliance-aggregation.txt>
> >Lecturer, School of Computer Science, Cardiff.
> >Assistant Professor, Dept. Computer Science and CCT, LSU.
> >www.cs.cf.ac.uk/user/I.J.Taylor/ & www.p2pgridbook.com
> >Tel: +44-781110 3142
> >
> >From: "David De Roure" <dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> >To: "Cees de Laat" <delaat at science.uva.nl>
> >Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" <dlioupis at cti.gr>,
> > "Oliver Storz" <oliver at comp.lancs.ac.uk>,
> > "Omer F. Rana" <o.f.rana at cs.cardiff.ac.uk>
> >Subject: appliance aggregation
> >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200
> >Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10503141346400.27784-100000 at pandora>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="us-ascii"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
> >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0
> >X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk via kronos.cti.gr
> >X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.24 (Clear:RC:0(152.78.70.1):SA:0(0.0/6.0):.
> >Processed in 0.605132 secs)
> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 13:52:39.0960 (UTC)
> >FILETIME=[16556980:01C5289D]
> >Thread-Index: AcUonRXCkK8ulhtaRJCW/u7Et85+Bw==
> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> >In-Reply-To: <p06210208be5af7501bb7@[150.183.85.163]>
> >x-sender: dder at pandora
> >x-mailscanner-from: dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean
> >x-mailscanner-information: Please contact
> helpdesk at ecs.soton.ac.uk for
> >more information
> >
> >Cees - a brief report of afternoon discussions around the Appliance
> >Aggregation session (minutes of the session will be provided
> separately).
> >
> >The context of the session is that this RG had a 36 month
> charter and
> >is now at the end of this time, so Dimitris is planning to bring the
> >activity to a close. The group has produced the first of 3
> documents
> >and is preparing to produce the next (architecture) prior to
> the final
> >one (standards). Dimitris appears to be pretty much on his
> own as the
> >others who had been involved in a leadership capacity and in active
> >work appear to have withdrawn from this GGF activity.
> >
> >The session had reasonable attendance and attracted a little
> discussion.
> >Dimitris invited volunteers to help with the next document
> but on the
> >whole people continued to read their email rather than raising their
> >hands.
> >
> >Afterwards we had a "gang of four" meeting with Oliver and Omer Rana
> >(Omer had acted as secretary for the session - he used to run a JINI
> >activity in GGF and has an interest in ubiquitous computing
> and sensor
> >networks).
> >
> >We discussed the nature of a future ubiquitous activity in GGF. We
> >felt that it may be appropriate to bring Appliance Aggregation to a
> >close and then create a new activity informed by the results of the
> >Appliance Aggregation work. The new RG could bring together the
> >interests and enthusiasm of Oliver and Dimitris as leaders,
> and Omer is
> >very supportive.
> >
> >Subject to discussion with you, we also considered that the
> best way to
> >wrap up the current RG might be to combine the remaining 2
> reports into
> >one and then to use this output as a basis for the new
> activity - this
> >will make it as useful as possible and perhaps also easier
> to deliver.
> >
> >Another strategy would be to review the Appliance
> Aggregation charter
> >to extend it into the new activity. I prefer the neatness
> of finishing
> >one and starting a new one. This will of course introduce a
> hurdle -
> >i.e. it remains to be tested whether or not there is sufficient
> >interest to create a new RG.
> >
> >I am waiting to see what the Sensor RG BoF is about tomorrow before
> >considering whether a new RG would have a broad umbrella
> which includes
> >sensor networks or whether there should be a distinct sensor
> activity.
> >
> >We also discussed various research projects which are
> playing in this
> >space, and how we can bring their work to GGF. I took an action to
> >follow up with CoreGrid as this has a peer-to-peer aspect. Another
> >case in pointis the Akogrimo project, which includes
> mobility and grid.
> >The european funding programme does encourage standards
> engagement, so
> >this could be mutually beneficial.
> >
> >Finally, it seems to me that from a community engagement perspective
> >there is value in establishing these links with parts of the
> ubiquitous
> >community, as it is a growing community with increasing
> interest in the
> >grid - so I am keen to keep these discussions going.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >-- Dave
>
>
> --
> http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/
>
More information about the appagg-rg
mailing list