Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
AMIGO |
Yes |
Yes. We have already planned this cooperation. We don't think at this moment if we will need any COPRAS help. So far we plan to cooperate through Amigo partners that already actively participate in relevant standardisation bodies. |
Yes, there is a separate dissemination, standardisation and exploitation work package. For standardisation 13.5 person months have been reserved for work in the first 18 months. |
OMA, 3GPP, OSGI, UPnP, Web service interoperability organisation and OASIS, DLNA |
OMA: mainly in the domain of personalization and security 3GPP: push mechanisms and MMS as potential enhancements OSGI: possible extension to the standard such as a component bakcplane, supporting distributed service provisioning and service/device network bootstrap. UPnP: Amigo can bring real case studies and interoperability tests in the area of general networking discoverability and audio/video streaming. WSIO and OASIS: core services and home entertainment services DLNA: real case studies in the area of QoS |
See 1.5 |
See 1.5 |
|
specifications and case studies will be produced within 12 months, first version of open source middleware and algorithms will be produced within 18-24 months after project start. interoperability tests will be produced 36-42 months after project start. |
Your information packet does not really help me to make concrete how COPRAS will help us with our standardisation activities. This questionnaire is quite detailed for projects that have just started (around september 2004) |
|
AOSD-Europe |
|||||||||||
ASG |
ASG is evaluating and using a set of standards which partly origin from one of your cooperating standardization organisations. Most of them are settled in the following technology domains:
|
Some of the participants do work or do have contact to standards bodies. At the moment no detailed survey about that exists. Help from your side to coordinate the cooperation would be very much appreciated. |
ASG is divided into work packages (C-x). The following list shows their responsibilities in respect to standardisation:
At the moment there is no specific budgeting on the activities towards standardisation (see reason for this above). Nevertheless the project partners try to incorporate where budget and time allows. |
NO |
|
Assessment, proof and enhancement of standards in the area of grid computing. Assessment, proof and enhancement of standards in the area of Web technologies (Semantic Web, Web Services). Assessment, proof and enhancement of standards in the area of Business Process Technology. |
|
Service-oriented computing based on Grid Technologies (enhancement of standards in the area of SOA and Web Services computing) Business Process and Workflow Technologies based on a Service Grid and Semantic Web Ontologies (use and enhancement of standards in the area of business process management and definition) Definition of Domain Ontologies (contribution to industry wide standardizations in the area of common domain models) |
|
M24 |
ASG (current phase) runs only 2 years. In this time frame ASG will develop an innova-tive, adaptive, grid-based, service-oriented architecture prototype. The time frame is very small relating standardisation corporation. If ASG will get the budget for phase 2 the results of phase 1 will definitely become more interesting for standardisation bodies. In phase 1 however ASG will concentrate more on the prototype delivery. This is the reason why there is no more concrete plan-ning on actions in this area. We would like to corporate with COPRAS to get even more aware technologies or specification that might possibly be interesting for standardisation bodies. |
CALIBRE |
No |
Not yet |
No |
CALIBRE is promoting the use and issues of Open Source Software to all FP6 projects. |
None |
None |
Promotion of the use of open source software |
D1.2-Final Characterisation & Roadmap of Libre software development |
D1.2 May 2005 |
As we are not addressing Open Source Software standardisation in our project, it would be useful if COPRAS has any inputs on that. The CALIBRE website is at www.calibre.ie You might also contact the COSPA project, who are looking at OSS in the public ad-ministrations. The contact is Giancarlo.succi@unibz.it |
|
D2.3-Roadmap of next generation development paradigms |
D2.3 May 2006 |
||||||||||
D4.10-Permanent European Industry OSS Forum |
D4.10 May 2006 |
||||||||||
DeDiSys |
Depending on the output of our technology integration, we aim at specifications for new or enhanced standards for middleware |
DeDiSys aims at the Java Community Process (JCP) and the OMG Specification Maintainance Cycle. Detailed plans for cooperation with standards bodies will be developed by mid 2006. |
These kind of activities are covered by two work packages, which are not merely dedicated to standards activities. Those comprise 30 MM together, of which some part may be assigned to standards activities. |
No |
No |
Fault tolerance, dependability, availability |
Interfaces and interaction standards to trade availability against constraint consistency in strongly coupled data centric applications |
Comparison and Recommendations on which of the four technologies (EJB, COM+/.NET, CORBA, JXTA) allow the trading between consistency and availability to be performed most efficiently. These recommendations are based on commonalities and differences of the prototype implementations with regards to user requirements and metrics |
June 2007 |
||
Middleware concepts |
Deployment and configuration standards |
An architecture; rules for technology integration including interaction and composition standards for component integration; the definition of required open platform services, and; well-defined metrics and evaluation methods for such a system proven by prototype implementations |
|||||||||
coordination for service based environments to guarantee dependability |
Interfaces and interaction standards to trade availability against correctness in loosely coupled service oriented applications |
||||||||||
Component concepts |
|||||||||||
EDOS |
|||||||||||
GORDA |
Yes |
Yes, COPRAS' help is very welcome |
Yes |
No |
Database replication |
GORDA intends to propose a standard architecture and a set of APIs to enable advanced database replication |
Specifications |
April 2006 |
|||
Reference implementation |
November 2006 |
||||||||||
Complete GORDA system prototypes |
April 2007 |
||||||||||
INFRAWEBS |
|||||||||||
MADAM |
The project will develop a middleware architecture and reference implementation to handle the adaptivity of applications on mobile devices. The success of the project is linked with the wide uptake of this architecture. Hence it is important for us to be seen as the de-facto standard. To achieve this we neet to involve a wider community of developers and open source strategies. However, whether it would also be useful to go down a more formal standardisation route remains to be seen. |
Yes. Provided that the a formal standard seems the right thing to do. |
No |
No |
No |
Thank you for a valuable initiative. Unfortunately, I do not foresee any major interactions with MADAM at this stage due to its nature as a software project. However, if the picture changes during the project period, I now have the knowledge to know who to turn to. |
|||||
MODELWARE |
OMG |
MODELWARE has a specific activity dedicated to the standardization in the domain of Model-Driven Development (MDD). For that purpose, a MDD Standardization Strategy is already defined, which looks like the Standardization Actions Plans COPRAS presents. The COPRAS roadmap is on line with that of MODELWARE but unfortunately, the level of dissemination of the MODELWARE MDD Standardization Strategy is confidential and, for that reason, the project cannot fill the questionnaire. |
|||||||||
PYPY |
|||||||||||
RODIN |
We did not plan any work on standartisation. |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|||||
SeCSE |
|||||||||||
SODIUM |
Yes |
Cooperation planned |
Yes |
ATHENA, INTEROP, MODELWARE |
OMG, OASIS |
Initial contacts |
VSCL Visual Service Composition language |
Language elements |
Specifications (and corresponding implementation technologies), guideline documents |
June 2005 |
|
USCL Unified Service Composition language |
Language elements |
Specifications (and corresponding implementation technologies), guideline documents |
June 2005 |
||||||||
USQL Unified Service Query language |
Language elements |
Specifications (and corresponding implementation technologies), guideline documents |
June 2006 |
||||||||
GeSMo Generic Service Model |
Model elements |
Specifications |
June 2005 |
||||||||
WS2 |
The project is an SSA. It does not by itself produce specifications. However, it supports the development of technologies at W3C, specifically Web services choreography and Semantic Web Services. |
The project is led by W3C |
Again, as W3C is leading the project, this interfacing is not needed as it is integrated in the project. |
Certain FP6 projects are customers of work being supported, such as Amigo, MADAM, ASG, INFRAWEBS, SODIUM. |
W3C |
See previous answers |
Wen service choreography |
Language to describe exchange of messages and sequences between Web services: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/ |
Previously mentioned issues are not deliverables of the project. |
||
Semantic Web Services framework |
Adding semantics to Web services |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
COSPAL |
|||||||||||
CoSy |
|||||||||||
GNOSYS |
|||||||||||
JAST |
|||||||||||
MACS |
|||||||||||
Mind RACES |
No |
No |
No |
No |
NO |
No |
|||||
Robot-Cub |
|||||||||||
SPARK |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body | Activity | ||||||||||
ARTIST2 |
|||||||||||
ASSERT |
|||||||||||
BETSY |
|||||||||||
CEmACS |
|||||||||||
COBIS |
|||||||||||
COMPARE | COMPARE has among its partners Thales and CEA who are members of OMG in which they're are active. The project will keep in mind the COPRAS proposition and ask for support in case it needs this or otherwise sees interesting areas forcooperation |
||||||||||
COSINE |
|||||||||||
DECOS |
Yes, it should influence standardization in the area of functional safety, dependability, dependable hard real-time control, networked embedded systems (generic as well as sector specific) |
Yes, definitely prepared to co-operate with standards bodies, and yes, co-operation with COPRAS is required |
Yes, one out of seven subprojects of the Integrated Project DECOS is dedicated to «dissemination, training, standardization, policy and gender issues». Standardization is a well defined part (work package) of the work programme. Budget: about 6 PM |
Cooperation with ARTIST2 and ASSERT planned, and as part with 2 evolving project proposals. |
IEC SC 65A, CEN/CENELEC; contacts to several sector oriented organisations: ARINC, AUTOSAR, FlexRay, OMG, SAE |
Functional Safety standards in/related with IEC 61508 |
Functional safety |
Functional Safety (whole life cycle, holistic system view, component based safety case) |
Generic, application and platform independent technology (high level services and middleware) for integrated, distributed critical embedded systems with very high dependability requirements, based on different time-triggered core technologies |
3 years |
Part of the work is just monitoring standardization in areas of interest to DECOS and DECOS application area |
Software engineering standards |
Software Engineering: Model Based development, Validation and Certification, Dependability Issues |
Hardware- and Software building blocks to reduce development, production, integration and maintenance cost of complex embedded systems (of systems) |
Demonstration within the project, products after the project (add. 3 years time frame) |
||||||||
Security of massively deployed networked embedded systems |
Security of System Integrity, configurability, maintainability, diagnosis |
A test bench for verification, validation and certification support of DECOS-technology based critical systems |
Prototype within 3 years, refinement and extension to different technology mixes afterwards (add. 3 years) |
||||||||
Integrated distributed System Architectures, Diagnosis, Maintenance for critical hard real-time systems |
Time-triggered technology, dependable, composable system architecture, incremental development and evaluation, deployment issues, Validation, Verification and Certification |
A framework and guidelines to build, validate and certify systems from(networked embedded) components which fulfil certain functional, performance and dependability attributes in many application areas |
3 years |
||||||||
EMBEDDED WISENTS |
|||||||||||
EMTECH |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Emtech did not answer the questionnaire but responded by e-mail indicating they did not deal with standardization issues |
|||||
GOLLUM |
|||||||||||
HIJA |
Yes, the project is developing technologies that are intended as new standards for real-time and embedded systems development. |
We are familiar with the COPRAS project and have planned for collaboration with COPRAS. We see an important role for COPRAS being to create opportunities for collaboration in common areas of standardisation with other projects in the embedded systems domain, as well as other domains in the IST programme. |
Yes, the project has specific tasks allocated to establishing the RTD results from the project as global standards. There are currently 12 person months allocated specifically for work in establishing new and revised standards from project results. |
The HIJA project is coordinating some standardisation efforts with an earlier FP5 projects called HIDOORS, however, this project is nearly finalised. We have not yet done so, but would like to collaborate with other FP6 projects in coordinating standardisation and look forward to COPRAS contributions in this regard. |
Real-time and Embedded Systems Forum ARINC 653 POSIX |
Defining Safety Critical Real-time Java extensions. Developing real-time Java based profiles for ambient intelligence and business critical applications. Specifications for partitioning kernel, real-time communications and object oriented extensions for Java based safety critical applications. |
Real-time Java profiles for safety-critical, business critical and ambient intelligence application domains |
Real-time Java profiles for safety-critical, business critical and ambient intelligence application domains |
Real-time Jave profiles |
Q1 2005 |
|
Annotation language for Functional Correctness Analysis and WCETA |
Annotation language for Functional Correctness Analysis and WCETA |
Computational Models and real-time Java based annotation langugaes |
Q3 2005 |
||||||||
Annocations to aid in resource usage and schedulability analysis |
Annocations to aid in resource usage and schedulability analysis |
Development tools for functional correctness, resource usage and schedulabitlity analysis along with acompanying methodologies |
Q1 2006 |
||||||||
Java Virtual Machine Extensions |
Java Virtual Machine Extensions |
Demonstrators of architecture neutral implementations of real-time applications from automotive, aerospace and mobile domains |
Q2 2006 |
||||||||
HiPEAC |
|||||||||||
HYCON |
|||||||||||
ICODES |
Yes |
Yes, persons involved in the project are active in the Working Group for Synthesis set up by the Open SystemC Initiative. |
Not specifically for standardization body but work package for dissemination and ex-ploitation which contains also contacts with stand. Bodies. |
No |
Open SystemC Initiative |
Participation in Working Group (Sythesis) |
Design methodology for embedded systems; definition of an extended synthesisable subset of SystemC |
ICODES intends to specifiy a system description language being automatically translatable into an embebbed systems implemenation; OSSS OFFIS system synthesis subset |
Framework for the development of embedded hardware/software systems: OSSS-lib : An extension to the SystemC simulation library to enable the simulation of the OSSS specifications |
OSSS-lib : Ongoing development; that is, it already exists and will be extended until approx. 06/2005 |
Please note, that the tool-related deliverable (OSSS-Parser and OSSS-Synthesiser) are not to be made public. These tools are intended to be commercialised after the project. |
Framework for the development of embedded hardware/software systems: OSSS-Synthesiser : A tool, translating OSSS automatically into VHDL that can be processed by state-of-the-art commercial synthesiser tools |
OSSS-Synthesiser: will be finished by the end of the project: 08/2007, however, there is a prototype already available right now |
||||||||||
Framework for the development of embedded hardware/software systems: OSSS language reference manual (actually a result of a previous project but being closely related) |
OSSS-LRM : Ongoing development; that is, it already exists and will be extended until approx. 06/2005 |
||||||||||
Framework for the development of embedded hardware/software systems: OSSS-Parser : Language front-end for the analysis of OSSS |
OSSS-Parser: ongoing development; that is, it already exists and will be extended until end of the project |
||||||||||
NeCST |
|||||||||||
RUNES |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
AMIRA |
|||||||||||
CASCOM |
|||||||||||
EC-BRIDGE |
No, ec-bridge project is a SSA, consists on the organization of 2 Conferences in China and several activities to provide Chinese audience a deep knowledge on European institutions and in this way to improve commercial relation between China and Europe. |
During the Shanghai Symposium, there was a booth from ETSI. However ec-bridge project does not plan to cooperate with any standard bodies. |
No |
No |
No |
||||||
eLOGMAR-M |
No formal standard will be an outcome of the project. |
No cooperation with any standard body. |
No |
No |
|||||||
EPRI KNOWLEDGE |
No |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
EPRI-Knowledge is a Specific Support Action of FP 6. Its goal is to support the development of visions and leadership among Europe's national parliamentarians, in the realm of ICTs. It contributes actively to raise the awareness of the IST programme in the target group of political decision makers. Furthermore, it supports the dissemination of results of the present programme and prepares the political debate of the future activities. |
||||
eu-DOMAIN |
|||||||||||
IST4BALT |
|||||||||||
LIAISON |
|||||||||||
MobileIN |
|||||||||||
MobiLife |
|||||||||||
MOSAIC |
|||||||||||
MOSQUITO |
Yes |
Yes, we are prepared to engage in standardisation activities if needed. We would appreciate COPRAS help if it could be beneficial for dissemination of MOS-QUITO results to standardization bodies. We would appreciate more details though about the COPRAS concept of Standardization Action Plans, in order to assess costs and benefits related to participation in such plan. |
The standardization activities are addressed by the Dissemination and Exploitation work package (WP7) of MOSQUITO. The total resources budgeted for WP7 are 29.3 pms, however standardization is just one of several activities which have to be covered by this WP. Therefore, realistically, the amount of resources available for standardiza-tion would be less than 20% of the WP effort. |
No |
No |
Mobile security |
Context-aware security mechanisms |
Specification of context-sensitive security infrastructure |
Specification of context-sensitive security infrastructure: Delivery date 31/08/2005 |
||
Mobile collaborative applications |
Distributed workflow management and service mediation mechanisms |
Specification of service mediation infrastructure |
Specification of trust management mechanisms: Delivery date 31/12/2005 |
||||||||
Business processes and workflow |
Trust management mechanisms in multiple administrative domains |
Business application adaptation specification |
Specification of security policies and enforcement mechanisms Delivery date 31/12/2005 |
||||||||
Security policy specification and enforcement mechanisms |
Specification of trust management mechanisms |
Specification of service mediation infrastructure: Delivery date 28/02/2006 |
|||||||||
Secure transport protocol for user authentication over the SMS in GSM/UMTS networks utilizing WPKI and SIM/USIM |
Specification of security policies and enforcement mechanisms |
Business application adaptation specification: Delivery date 28/02/2006 |
|||||||||
MULIMOB |
The MULIMOB project indicated by telephone it does not envisage contributing to standardization although it will be using existing standards |
||||||||||
MYCAREVENT |
The project intends to develop an ontology related to repair and diagnostic information for cars. In the due course of these developments, standards are envisaged. In which area and to what extent has to be clarified. |
The German DIN was invited as full partner to the project to support in the envisaged standardization efforts. Currently no help is envisaged from COPRAS, but DIN and the Workpackage Leader for Ontologies were informed about COPRAS. |
Workpackage 3: Ontologies Approx. 15 man/months |
Currently not |
No |
Not applicable |
Building upon OASIS initiative with focus on automotive repair and diagnose information |
Draft specification for general ontology (PAS Draft) of vendor independent information access/ representation of Schematic Diagrams |
PAS & reports |
12/04 - 01/06 |
|
POMPEI |
|||||||||||
SHARE |
|||||||||||
SIMS |
The SIMS project has indicated by telephone it does not expect to generate relevant output for standardization |
||||||||||
SNOW |
A contribution to standard is planned. The details depend on resources available and cost assignment. In general, SNOW will rather reuse existing standards than invent new ones from scratch. Specification bodies shall be influenced rather passively, e.g., by submitting reports about issues discovered by SNOW consortium members, guideline documents, tests etc |
Currently we are in a discussion phase on how to cooperate with standards bodies, a solution has not been fixed yet. Several partners are directly involved in groups of W3C. COPRAS help can be useful. The exact conditions have to be communicated to our consortium. |
Standardization work is a fraction in some WPs, no direct budging to standard work is assigned. If the result of the project helps to improve existing standards or if it could have an important impact to the market, proposals could be admitted afterwards. |
The project has just started and cooperation is indeed planned which other projects. Nevertheless, the topics of this cooperation are currently more on a technical basis. Standardization might be an issue in the future, but is not now in this context. |
Multimodal interactions |
||||||
Device independence |
|||||||||||
Voice XML, semantic interpretation, SRGS, SSML |
|||||||||||
Compound document formats (CDF), HTML (especially modularisation), Semantic web |
The direct nature of COPRAS help and the associated conditions are not clear. |
||||||||||
ULTRA |
|||||||||||
wearIT@work |
Yes; the WearIT@work hardware platform and software framework |
Yes |
Yes |
Not yet |
No |
Applications |
Interfaces |
To promote the issue the establishment of an Open Wearable Computing Group (OWCG) is planned where companies not partners of the project might partici-pate and a community beyond the project can evolve. This will be supported by the annually performed International Forum on Applied Wearable Computing (iFAWC) (www.ifawc.org ), which was performed already twice. |
|||
Software framework |
Software framework |
||||||||||
Hardware platform |
Hardware platform |
||||||||||
User Centred design (ISO 13407) |
User Centred design (ISO 13407) |
||||||||||
Education |
Education |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
3DTV |
Yes |
Yes, we are well prepared, and have some plans. We need to know more about what COPRAS can do for us to find out whether we need its help, or not. |
No specific WP's or a budget for interfacing with standards bodies. However, stan-dardization issues are well ecognized within many intended activities and workpack-ages. |
No |
ISO |
MPEG-4 3DAV; JPEG 3D; MPEG-21 (maybe) |
3DTV |
Digital 3DTV bit-stream structure & Digital 3D Motion Picture Representation |
Technical documents describing specifications |
After M03 of the project's lifespan |
This is a NoE. Therefore, the primary concern is the «successful integration» of the research community. The technical focus is well defined and the intended integration will be achieved by concentrating on that focus. Standardization issues are well rec-ognized, and the group intends to provide important technical input to the mentioned standardization bodies. Key people who participated/chaired MPEG4 video, MPEG4 AVC and other related standardization activities within ITU are in the group. The con-nection to standardization activities will be via these people who are already formally in standardization activities, and, at the same time in this NoE. |
AXMEDIS |
Yes |
Yes we are involved but we don't need COPRAS' help |
No, the work is distributed along the WPs. |
No |
Digital Rights Management |
Interoperable Digital Rights Management |
Requirements |
DRM first version will be available for M16 |
|||
Multimedia content distribution |
Multimedia content distribution model |
Specification, demonstrators, tests |
Multimedia distribution model first version will be available for M16 |
||||||||
Multimedia Content descriptors |
|||||||||||
GameTools |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|||||||
INCCOM |
Indirectly yes. INCCOM focuses on business models and commercialization of innovation. One aspect within this is standardization. |
No |
No |
No |
No |
None |
One of the challenges of the cross-media content industry is the multitude of access devices, protocols, content formats, standards, and regulations etc. Within the INCCOM project scope the consortium will create awareness and understanding for the variety of cross-media content business scenarios and their relation to standards. |
Convergence, platform integration, transparent billing and provisioning, flexible delivery, DRM or quality of service |
INCCOM will aim at integrating standards into a uniform and easy-to-understand commercial framework. This will be delivered in form of tests and supporting documents. |
August - October 2006 |
|
IPerG |
Yes, we plan to contribute technology and specifications that can contribute to stan-dardisation work. However, none of our work is explicitly intended to become a stan-dard. |
We would appreciate COPRAS help in this process, but not until after our first internal review (January 2006). |
This work is included in our work package «dissemination». Approximately 3 person months can be devoted to standards work throughout the project duration. |
No |
No |
Information and communication technologies |
Sensor and Actuator integration, Open Event Models |
Interaction Framework and Device Integration Software |
First version available in September 2005. Final version available in September 2006 |
||
Privacy protection |
Peer to Peer Network Technology |
Topology-sensitive Infrastructure for Distributed Pervasive Services (Games) |
Final version available in December 2007 |
||||||||
Privacy Protection in Locative and Pervasive Services |
Design and evaluation guidelines for pervasive games |
Final version available in March 2008. |
|||||||||
M-Pipe |
Yes. we will contribute (probably) to MPEG, ITU. WE may also contr. to e.g. IETF |
Not for the moment (we inteface standard bodies directly) |
No, done as part of ordinay work |
No |
No |
MPEG, ITU |
Source codecs |
Specifications, technologies |
During the project's entire lifespan |
||
IETF, 3GPP |
Transport solutions |
||||||||||
NM2 |
Yes, the definition of language describing non-linear narratives together with additional sets of metadata on the asset level has potential for standardisation |
Several partners of the project are member of envisaged standardisation bodies and working groups. Additional help is always welcome. |
Yes, there is a budget of 10,5 person month to coordinate these activities (over 3 years) |
To some extent we envisage to coordinate with IP-Racine. We also maintain an awareness of complementary projects and proposals within the Framework Pro-grammes and may seek to co-ordinate our activities with one or more of these in the future. |
MPEG |
BT is regularly attending MPEG meetings, with a specific interest in the following activities: - MPEG-7 (Multimedia Description Schemes). There is an opportunity to submit a proposal for narrative-based media descriptions based on work, which is in progress in NM2. - MPEG-21 Multimedia Middleware. This proposes a plat-form independent, extensible, declarative middleware framework that can be put into any media device and which allows easy high-level application development for media applications. This framework is highly com-plementary to the objectives of NM2 and could assist with the exploitation of NM2 outcomes. |
Description of non-linear narratives (construction of a/v media based on non-linear narratives and high user engagement) |
Specification - Language for the representation of visual narratives (deliverable month 24 = August 2006) |
Project month 24 (August 2006) |
||
Digital (audio-visual) media |
Description of Multimedia Middleware APIs which facilitate the delivery of flexible non-linear narratives. |
Tools and Middleware Components and Delivery Systems (final releases deliverable month 33 = May 2007) |
Project month 33 (May 2007) |
||||||||
POLYMNIA |
The POLYMNIA project aims to deliver technologies that are intended to be global standards. Namely it aims to contribute to MPEG-21, MPEG-7, MPEG 4, W3C, and H.26x activities and standards. |
The project aims to cooperate with standards bodies but has not planned yet this cooperation. Planning these activities is part of the «Dissemination and Use Plan» deliverable, which will be finalised in project month 14 (Nov 2005). The help of CORPAS would be welcome in interfacing with standardisation bodies and locating potential contributions to standards. This project will cooperate with: a) H.26x standard activities b) The W3C activities, such as the XML-DTD standardization activity, and the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language, SMIL, for specifying the layout and formatting of multimedia content. c) MPEG-21 standard. |
Yes, in the WP9 concerning Dissemination, Exploitation and Implementation Plan-ning. The allocated man-months are three. |
Standardization related activity with other EU-funded projects is foreseen but the re-lated process has not been deployed yet. |
The project is not already in the process of deploying standardization related activ-ity. |
Content representation |
Content representation; scalable content representation description language for human activity representation, description language allowing adaptive content delivery. In the framework of the MPEG-7 activities, the consortium will contribute with the development of the new scalable visual content representation algorithms, description and organization schemes. The contribution will refer to the a) Description Definition Schemes (DDS) of the MPEG-7, b) low feature vectors organization and so on |
D3.1.Report on human content detection and localization : specification document |
D3.1.Report on human content detection and localization Project Month 11 |
||
Content delivery |
Content delivery; mechanisms for adaptive content delivery based on network- media device characteristics and user preferences to ensure (Digital Item Adaptability), Quality of Service (QoS), Universal Media Access; it can be considered for standardization through the MPEG-21 |
D3.4.Report on human tracking specification document |
D3.4.Report on human tracking Project Month 17 |
||||||||
Semantic analysis for compression delivery |
Semantic analysis for compression; for the MPEG-4 standards, new ideas and concepts for automatic acquisition, detection and localization of the se-mantic content will be proposed. Although the standard does not directly deal with such kind of semantic detection algo-rithms, it requires such methods for achieving high compres-sion ratios, university accessibility of the visual content and multimedia capabilities (see questionnaire for more information) |
D5.1 Description of Spatio-temporal Content Representation specification document |
D5.1 Description of Spatio-temporal Content Representation Project Month 10 |
||||||||
D5.2 Description of Semantic Content Representation : specification document |
D5.2 Description of Semantic Content Representation Project Month 21; D5.3 Report on the Media Processing and Integration Tool Project Month 25 |
||||||||||
D6.1 Report on content-based media organization and adaptive mechanisms for content access and retrieval: specification document |
D6.1 Report on content-based media organization and adaptive mechanisms for content access and retrieval Project Month 20 |
||||||||||
D6.2 Report on Content Delivery Mechanisms of POLYMNIA: specification document |
D6.2 Report on Content Delivery Mechanisms of POLYMNIA Project Month 26 |
||||||||||
WalkOnWeb |
Yes, we plan to come up with guidelines on how GIS information on walking paths (for hikers or ramblers) should be structured in order to produce transborder rambling guides (electronically or on paper). |
At this early stage in the project it is not clear if the output will be oriented towards real standards. If yes, COPRAS help will be appreciated |
No |
No |
No |
Not applicable |
Geographical Information Systems |
Several WalkonWeb partners are involved in standardisation efforts towards traditional GIS. Luciad is an Associate Member of the Open GIS Consortium (OGC). In this respect, Luciad has supported the OGC activities by implementing OpenGIS standards in its products. Their product, LuciadMap, incorporates support for a series of OpenGIS standards including Geography Markup Language (GML), Web Map Server (WMS), Web Feature Server (WFS), Web Coverage Server (WCS) and SQL 92 with Geometry types |
D3.3.1 Report on Integration of cartographic information |
D3.3.1 Report on Integration of cartographic information: March 2005 |
|
Scalable Vector Graphics |
The technical work in the project will make use of the SVG standard (W3C Scalable vector graphics). Wherever applicable, the consortium will provide feedback to the SVG Working Group through their official mailing list (www-svg@w3.org) and the even more popular Yahoo developers list - where also a lot of W3C Working Group members are active. Through these two very popular mailings lists the consortium will set up discussions regarding problems experienced in this project concerning existing, planned or even missing features in the SVG 1.1 specification, the SVG 1.2 Working Draft and future drafts. Especially toward the use of SVG in mobile applications the consortium could provide relevant feedback |
D3.5.1 Report on Data Exchange Method |
D3.5.1 Report on Data Exchange Method: July 2005 |
||||||||
Structurisation of location dependent data; the WalkoWeb project intends however to use a geo-ontology instead of an approach with pure coordinate linking for the data. |
At this point in time our geo-ontology based approach still needs to be prototyped and tested before long term conclusions on standardisation can be envisaged. |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
AKOGRIMO |
This is not the primary purpose of the Project, but we believe that the work of the Project will lead to requirements for change to existing standards or for new standards and we wish to ensure that these will be addressed. |
Cooperation with COPRAS would be valuable to Akogrimo. |
Akogrimo does not have a WP specifically for participating in the standards process. It does have a WP for standards coordination and this contains 5PM in the first 18 months. |
Akogrimo provides the co-chair of the Grid Standards Coordination Group (GSCG) which aims to coordinate standardisation between FP6 IST Grids Unit Projects. |
Currently Akogrimo is not as a project deploying standardisation related activity. It has recently completed a state of the art report in its field and technical choices are starting to be made. Partners are involved in standarads activity including IETF, W3C and GGF. |
Akogrimo's main technical focus is on Grids, mobility and mobile networks, security and semantic web. |
The reply to 1.5 gives an indication of Akogrimo's present status and main technical focus. |
Remarks at 1.5 apply |
The 1st Project cycle in Akogrimo is due to complete around January 2006. |
||
CoreGrid |
CoreGRID is a Network of Excellence and does not directly create and deliver technologies, specifications. However, partners of CoreGRID are also active in many other projects that do this. |
As CoreGRID is addressing the Next Generation Grid based on novel technologies it is oriented towards research. However, CoreGRID will communicate and cooperate with the standards bodies once the virtual institues of CoreGRID raise the need to do so in order to prepare future standards. |
Yes |
Yes: Akogrimo, CoreGRID, DataMiningGrid, HPC4U, inteliGrid, KW-F Grid, NextGRID, OntoGrid, Provenance, SIMDAT and UniGrids. |
GGF, W3C, OASIS, IETF |
As mentioned above: CoreGRID itself does not deploy standardisation related activities but many CoreGRID partners are active on different levels in different standardisation bodies: contributing to evolving standards, contributing to management of some of the bodies. |
This project is collaborating in the area of standards through the Grid Standards Co-ordination Group with the following projects: Akogrimo, CoreGRID, DataMiningGrid, HPC4U, inteliGrid, KW-F Grid, NextGRID, OntoGrid, Provenance, SIMDAT and UniGrids. |
||||
DataMiningGrid |
The project could probably contribute to the development of World standards in the area of languages for description of the Data Mining processes in grid computing environments (Data Mining Grid Modelling Language). |
We are interested in collaboration with COPRAS and any help would be appreciated in terms of how to approach bodies concerning data management and similar standards groups. |
We have allocated 1 Person Month for collaboration with standardisation bodies. |
No |
We are currently collaborating with the inteliGrid and OntoGrid projects, as well as with the SIMDAT project, falling in the same strategic objective (Grids for Complex Problem Solving). |
Work in progress regarding data mining grid technologies (also knowledge technologies for complex problem solving environments) Work in progress regarding semantic technologies |
XML for analysis |
Data query including more complex pre-processing that shoulde be applied to the result of the querz as an XML standard |
Language specification (probably) |
Spring 2006 |
DataMiningGrid is a smaller STREP project, which limits its ability to give strong contribution to the development of relevant standards. That is why we seek for collaboration with other important projects within the strategic objective Grids for Complex Problem Solving. |
OSGA-DAI |
Also concerns the above issue |
Some architectural improvements, and probably some middleware. (DataMiningGrid DataAccessServices) |
|||||||||
GRID Application Toolkit (GAT) |
DataMiningGrid specific APIs for DataMiningGrid Data Access Services, and DataMiningGrid Data Analysis Services |
DataMiningGrid Analysis Services (middleware) |
|||||||||
Distributed data mining |
No existing standards at this point. The project itself intends to contribute to the development of this new area of research, facilitated by the evolution of grid technologies. |
Reference architecture, testbed |
|||||||||
GRIDCOORD |
|||||||||||
HPC4U |
HPC4U might develop technologies which could be standardrised, but we do not currently have any such activities. |
We are certainly interested in utilising COPRAS for any standardisation work, but currently we do not have plans or feel we need help on this. We use the Grid Standards Co-ordination Group (GSCG) to monitor activities. |
Yes we do, there is 1 PM allocated for this. |
Not at the moment |
Service level agreements |
Semantic web/Web ontologies |
Potentially use cases & input to specifications |
Q4 2006 |
Due to the limited resources allocated we don't foresee any major work being done on standardisation. But there are some interesting subjects in the project which might be put forward. Sorry for being a bit vague at this stage. |
||
inteliGRID |
The project could probably contribute to the development of standards in the area of semantic grid architecture and languages (OWL-G), grid ontology tools and services as well as in the area of grid based dynamic virtual organisations. |
We are interested in collaboration with COPRAS and any help would be appreciated in terms of how to approach relevant standardisation bodies. We are especially interested, if COPRAS could help us become members of W3C standardisation group on "Semantic Grid" (to deal with standardisation of OWL-G). |
We have 5 PM allocated for the task on semantic grid standardisation and 9 PM for the task on grid based virtual organisation standardisation. 5 PM are allocated for co-ordination of standardisation efforts. |
No, but, we seek close collaboration with the OntoGrid project falling under the same strategic objective of grids for complex problem solving. |
Industry Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) www.iai-international.org/iai_international/ |
IFC standard development (OWL-IFC) |
Semantic grid architecture |
We need to standardize the way how ontology services are being used within the grid environment. Other grid services need to be aware of the ontology services and take full advantage of these. InteliGrid will focus on both low and high level integration between grid services and ontology services |
Guideline document, reference implementation, testbed |
Winter 2006 |
InteliGrid is a STREP project, which limits its ability to give strong contribution to the development of relevant standards. That is why we seek for collaboration with other important projects within the strategic objective Grids for Complex Problem Solving. |
Grid based ontology services |
A) OWL-G Web Ontology Language for Grid Services; B) Extension to the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) standard to conform to the Web Ontology Language (OWL) |
Reference implementation, specification of interfaces for grid ontology services, guideline documents, tests |
|||||||||
Data access and integration |
Integration with higly structured, industrial, product model database management systems. Mechanisms to enable semantics search etc. by using OGSA-DAI. |
Metadata annotation for complex product models |
|||||||||
K-WF GRID |
|||||||||||
NextGRID |
Yes, this is one of the main objectives of NextGRID. To achieve this NextGRID's standardisation committee will set up an project internal process to select and support standardisation activities wherever this is necessary and promising. |
From an operational point of view NextGRID is prepared to cooperate with standards bodies. The respective standards process is currently been set up by the standardisation committee and will define internal as well as external interfaces to the standardisation process. With respect to the cooperation with standards bodies the help of COPRAS would be very valuable to NextGRID. |
Yes, NextGRID has a «Standards» work package with 25,5 person months assigned for the first 18 month of the project (total duration of the project: 36 months). However, how much of time will be spent interfacing with standards bodies is yet to be determined. |
Yes, NextGRID is chairing the Grid Standards Co-ordination Group (GSCG) which aims at co-ordinating standardisation activities between the following FP6 Grid projects: Akogrimo, CoreGRID, DataMiningGrid, GridCoord, HPC4U, inteliGrid, KW-F Grid, NextGRID, OntoGrid, Provenance, SIMDAT, UniGrids |
Currently NextGRID as a project is not deploying standardisation related activities since the respective process has not yet been set up (see also the GENERAL REMARK at Section 2.1). But project partners are involved in various standardisation activities, which will be documented and possibly supported through NextGRID in the near future. |
The NextGRID project is currently compiling a list of existing and well-established standards that it intends to use as a baseline for its research. It is also compiling a list of industry specifications which have not been standardized yet but which will either impact NextGRID research or will be candidates for being impacted by the research carried out in NextGRID. These will be documented in the upcoming NextGRID Standards Month 6 Report (end of February 2005). Over the next few months the NextGRID Standards Committee will make a determination which of the industry specifications the NextGRID project would wish to influence and what would be the most efficient way to make that happen. |
|||||
OntoGrid |
Yes |
In principle we are prepared to collaborate with standards bodies. As yet, no specific plans have been made other than participation in the Grid Standards Coordination Group. Assistance would be useful. |
There are no specific packages targeted at standardisation, although output from workpackages is likely to lead towards proposals. |
This project is collaborating in the area of standards through the Grid Standards Co-ordination Group with the following projects: Akogrimo, CoreGRID, DataMiningGrid, HPC4U, inteliGrid, KW-F Grid, NextGRID, OntoGrid, Provenance, SIMDAT and UniGrids |
Grid Compliant Ontology Services |
Extensions to WS-DAI specifications to support the deployment of Ontology Services. |
Inputs to GGF specifications. |
Project duration. Early drafts should be available M12. |
|||
Extensions to WS-DAI specifications to support deployment of RDF stores. |
Prototype (experimental) implementations |
||||||||||
PROVENANCE |
Yes, a provenance reference architecture |
Yes, we plan to produce a standardisation proposal and a best practice document. No specific cooperation is planned yet with a specific body. |
Standardisation proposal is a deliverable of the architecture WP. |
As part of the "horizontal" activity |
Not yet |
Provenance architecture and best practice in Grid/Web Service area |
Architecture |
Specification |
Q2 2006 |
||
Best practice |
|||||||||||
SIMDAT |
The project is focused on using reference implementations of current standards to achieve the project goals. We will provide industrial requirements for Grid technology standards. |
SIMDAT is a member of the Grid Standards Coordination Group (see 3.2 below). COPRAS could help with providing access to a greater number of standards bodies |
3.5 man months for the first 18 months |
Akogrimo, CoreGRID, DataMiningGrid, HPC4U, inteliGrid, KW-F Grid, NextGRID, OntoGrid, Provenance, SIMDAT and UniGrids |
Not yet decided |
||||||
UniGridS |
Yes |
yes, through Grid Standards Co-ordination Group (GSCG) - Yes. |
Yes, 20 person/months |
Yes, see 3.2 |
GGF & OASIS |
Work on specifications, usa case, best pracitice - implementation of Grid software to comply with new standards proposals. |
OGSA and related specifications |
Overall architecture specification |
Contribution to OGSA specification by GGF Implementation of an OGSA compliant version of UNICORE |
The commited timeframe is determined by the duration of the project. It is however expected that the persons involved will be able to continue to work on the standards and the software well bejond the end of the project |
This project is collaborating in the area of standards through the Grid Standards Co-ordination Group with the following projects: Akogrimo, CoreGRID, DataMiningGrid, HPC4U, inteliGrid, KW-F Grid, NextGRID, OntoGrid, Provenance, SIMDAT and UniGrids. Work on standards normally exceeds the typical duration of a project. Proper instruments need to be devised to allow this in order to strrengthen the European influence on international standards especially if the people working on the subject are employed by academic or research institutions. |
WS-RF and WS-* |
Standards draft |
Contribution to specification of WS-RF Important for the implementation of next version of UNICORE |
|||||||||
JSDL, Grid Ecconomics, Managemetn of Grids |
Use cases, best practices, specifications |
Contribution to specification, use case document |
|||||||||
Application interfaces, Portals |
Use cases, best practices, specifications |
Use cases |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
DELVE |
|||||||||||
EURITRACK |
|||||||||||
EUROPCOM |
The project will be producing a 'proof of principle' demonstrator system, designed to imnprove situatinal awareness and aid rescue efforts of the emergency services. Assuming that the system works well, it would be highly desirable for this to become the basis for an emergency services standard, though the only project aim in this area is to produce a paper with recommendations for standardisation. |
The project would be willing to co-operate with standrds bodies. This has not yet been planned. Help to get the timing right and put in the right level of effort would be appreciated. |
There is one small work package allocated to regulation and standardisation - since these aspects are very cklosely linked, the split of effort between the two is not defined. 2 man months are allocated in total (1 month with partner IMST) |
We have been in contact with the MESA project, but no detailed plans have been formulated. |
No |
Use of UltraWideBand (UWB) for positioning & communications for the emergency services (in particular Fire, Police, Ambulance). Intention is to produce a paper to make some standards recommendations. This also depends on the regulations governing the use of UWB |
The UWB waveform (Physical layer) - choice of UWB technology will be made and justified) for the demonstrator and the outcome of testing will impact on final recommendations |
A 'green paper' submission on standardisation of UWB for this emergency service application |
Month 32 of the project |
||
Use of UltraWideBand (UWB) radar for search and rescue for the emergency services |
The networking protocols (MAC, Routing) |
Other project deliverables may be relevant, though they relate mainly to the 'proof of principle' demonstrator. (Requirements and Design specifications) |
At various stages through the project - the first issue of the requirements document is already available; the 'proof of principle' design specifications are due after the first year |
||||||||
Interfaces from the UWB system into other emergency services equipment, if required |
|||||||||||
MITRA |
|||||||||||
OASIS |
|||||||||||
ORCHESTRA |
|||||||||||
RESCUER |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Our project's task-Improvement of the emergency risk management through secure mobile mechatronic support to bomb disposal-does not include any standardisation activity. We simply obey the existing standards in this field. |
||||
STREAM |
|||||||||||
WIN |
Project acronym |
Section 1 |
Section 2 |
Section 3 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Will your project deliver technologies, specifications or other output that are in-tended to be European or global standards or otherwise may contribute to stan-dardisation work? |
1.2 Is your project in this respect prepared to cooperate with standards bodies, and have you already planned this cooperation? Do you require COPRAS help in this process? |
1.3 Does your project have specific work packages addressing activities required to in-terface with standards bodies and if so, how many man/months are budgeted for this? |
1.4 Is your project in the process of deploying or coordinating standardisation related activity with other EU funded projects either in FP6 or other Framework Pro-grammes and if so, could you please list the other projects involved? |
1.5 Is your project already in the process of deploying standardisation related activity in coordination with one of more standards bodies or industry consortia and if so, which activity does this concern and with organisations are involved? |
2.1 Areas of standardization |
2.2 Nature of issues to be standardized |
2.3 Nature of deliverables to be produced |
2.4 Timeframes |
Additional remarks |
||
Standards body |
Activity |
||||||||||
AAL |
The objective of the specific support action "Ambient Assisted Living " is to prepare an Art. 169 initiative in the field of "Small and smart technologies for ambient assisted living" to be submitted by the end of the 2-years duration. |
A co-operation is neither prepared nor planned. Help is not needed. |
No |
No |
No |
||||||
ASK-IT |
Yes |
Yes. We are already working with CEN TC224 WG6, but plan to work with a number of others. |
17.9 man-months |
COST 219ter, but I would anticipate collaboration with others a the work progresses. |
Usability standards and inclusive design guidelines (e.g. accessibility) |
Compendium of relevant standards |
April 2006 |
||||
Telecommunication standards (e.g. for handset design, icons, etc.) |
Policy and standards recommendations |
September 2008 |
|||||||||
Electrotechnical standards (e.g. assistive and domotic equipment) |
|||||||||||
Software and interoperability standards (e.g. intelligent agents) |
|||||||||||
BenToWeb |
|||||||||||
COGAIN |
Yes |
We intend to co-operate with standards bodies. This is not yet planned. We would like COPRAS help. |
Yes. WP 2 «Standardisation» is intended to do this. It has 12.5 person-months in the first 18 months allocated to generating standards, of which 1 2 months could be allo-cated to co-operating with standards bodies. |
Not at the moment, but this is planned for the future if suitable projects are found. |
No, not yet |
Eye tracking : Standards for a common format for eye tracking data |
How a common data format can be made for eye tracking for manufacturers and end users agreeing on such a standard |
Report on «Requirements for the common format of eye movement data» |
12 months from start |
We are keen to co-operate with all existing Standards Bodies that may have an inter-est in forming new standards that will allow the use of eye tracking equipment with ex-isting and new interfaces, with the aim of enabling people with disabilities to use eye-based pointing and interaction with these interfaces and computer systems. |
|
Protocol and API for eye tracking interfacing and interface control |
How a common protocol and API for interfacing and control can be standardised agreeing on such a standard |
Report on «Protocols and API for eye tracking control» |
18 months from start |
||||||||
Standards for allowing plug and play type compatibility of eye trackers and interfaces/systems |
Standards for allowing plug and play type compatibility of eye trackers and interfaces/systems agreeing on a standard |
Report on «Draft standards for eye movement data formats and eye tracker API's» |
12 months from start |
||||||||
CWST |
|||||||||||
EIAO |
Yes |
Through the Web Accessibility Benchmarking cluster we will coordinate with W3C; a dialog with COPRAS could be of interest |
Indirectly from the cluster MM? |
Yes, in the cluster: Support EAM & BenToWeb |
W3C |
Developing a plug-in interface for an accissibility robot; developing a methodology for using WCAG; participating in the development of EARL |
Web accessibility |
Interface between crawler and plug-in interface for evaluation |
Software: Prototype web accessibility observatory |
First release in November 2005 |
The overall goal of the project is to measure the use of standards and to contribute to the improvement of accessibility |
EARL |
Methodology: Unified Web Evaluation Methodology |
First release in June 2005 |
|||||||||
ENABLED |
Possibly; guidelines for Web accessibility with use of new multimodal, haptic and audio tools; policies and recommendations for transmission of multimodal information over the Internet. |
Yes , we would be prepared to co-operate with standard bodies, no specific plans; if COPRAS can provide such help then it will be great. |
No specific work packages. |
Not at the moment |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
W3C |
Guidelines for web accessibility |
Recommendations _ specifications |
2006 |
|
IETF & ETSI |
QoS specific to multimodal data transmission |
Technologies, guideline documents, tests |
2007 |
||||||||
EUAIN |
|||||||||||
HEARCOM |
Yes |
Partly; to be determined (depending of contacts that partners have already and which is not fully known as yet) |
As part of tasks. Estimate is about 2 to 4 man/months that can be allocated. |
No |
No, not yet |
Audiological diagnostic tests |
Standard diagnostic tests for hearing loss within different European countries and languages. Methods to compare outcomes of these tests; audiological profile for hearing impairement |
Specification for the personal link technology |
Personal wireless link: first specs: April 2006 |
||
Wireless communication link |
Wireless link intended to allow bi-directional wireless audio-information for hearing aids. Replacing current telecoil methods |
Specification of internet sound systems and its control |
Standard Auditory profil: First version: November 2005; definite version: 2007 |
||||||||
Effect of transmission conditions (for phone, VoIP etc) on intelligibility of hearing impaired persons. (possible area of standardization in ITU) |
Internet sound system (control) for audiological screening tests and rehabilitation methods (sound materials and methods for training); in addition web-access guidelines for hearing impaired |
Standard Auditory profile |
Internet sound system profile: first specs: November 2005 |
||||||||
Specific needs of hearing impaired persons for speech codecs in transmission system (e.g. ITU) (possibly) |
|||||||||||
MAPPED |
Perhaps. We are designing a system which will alow disbaled people to plan door to door journeys taking into accounbt their accesibility needs. |
We are willing to cooperate. We have not made any plans. We do not know if we will need any help |
No |
No |
No |
Public transport accessibility |
We do not know if having contacts with standards bodies will be beneficial, we remain to be convinced. We have looked into the existence of standrads for public transport informatin and there does seem to be some, howeer their is ver poor uptake with transport information providers and accesibility information appears to be largely ignored. We have therefore decided to work with whatever is available at the different sites |
||||
MICOLE |
Eventually specifications and technologies for user interfaces for special groups |
We do not know yet, but we do have persons participating to standardization work in Europe (Dr. Klaus Miesenberger from university of Lintz) |
No, but it is included in the common plan |
Not at the moment |
Multimodal interaction with computers of blind users, user requirements and design recommendations |
Utilisation of and between different modalities of computer interaction |
Guideline documents, specifications |
March 2007 |
|||
Blind user's abilities and disabilities with multimodal computer user interfaces |
Specifications, evaluation report |
September 2007 |
|||||||||
MOVEMENT |
|||||||||||
Support-EAM |
A Unified Web Evaluation Methodology for the accessibility of Web Sites ( UWEM) - a CEN Workshop agreement on a Quality Mark concerning the accessibility of Web Sites |
Yes, with CEN |
a CEN Workshop (secretariat 38 000 euros) - 5 months |
Yes, through a Project Cluster (WAB Cluster)to produce teh UWEM (see above) |
CEN The workshop will be open to industrial partners (Kick off planed on April 14th 2005) |
"Specification of a complete European certification scheme concerning the delivery of a Quality Mark for Web Content Accessibility" |
Quality control certification |
CEN Workshop Agreement |
April 2005 - March 2006 |