Add a Comment

Comment by Antonio Kung on November 19, 2011 at 13:26

Hello,

 

I would like to report the eVIA general assembly that took place on Nov 17 in Spain

 

Panel

I was part of a panel where Peter Wintlev-Jensen presented EIP-AHA and where I briefly presented the declaration. The good news is that EIP-AHA will focus on 5 priority actions, one of them being 

Flexible & interoperable ICT solutions for active & independent living (Global standards development, guidelines for business models and financing for independent living solutions)

 

Dedicated workshop to debate on the declaration

A debate workshop was organised by Luis Lain (Unizar) and myself on the declaration. Here is the current draft summary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate was moderated by Luis Lain from University of Zaragoza and Antonio Kung from Trialog

The debate was structured into three parts: an initial discussion on platforms and ecosystems, a discussion on a number of selected measures proposed in the Lecce declaration and finally a conclusion.

Initial discussion on platforms and ecosystems.

A presentation was made by Luis Lain on the experience of the MonAMI FP6 project to create a mainstream market. Two conclusions were made: first, even through MonAMI could demonstrate the feasibility of interoperability through a proof of concept, the value of this contribution would be lost if interoperability practice was not following beyond the project. Secondly, the current fragmented vertical market could be transformed into a mainstream horizontal market based on an ecosystem relying on a commonly agreed open platform. These conclusions led to the MonAMI declaration and later on to the Lecce declaration.

Discussion on some of the measures.

Measure 6 (AAL platforms should position themselves in relation to other platform initiatives such as the Future Internet PPP) was discussed. Blanca Jordan Rodriguez from Atos presented the FI-PPP initiative and the objective of the FI-Ware project to provide an ICT platform for applications based on the future internet. Ana Cerezo from UPM presented the Infinity project, a key interface project that would collect data on undertakings on the FI,  characterize them through a common description framework in order to make this information available to the FI community. It was commented that AAL undertaking could perhaps be described in the same manner, at the level of applications but also at the level of technology building blocks (e.g. perhaps AALOA building blocks could also be described this way).

Measure 5 was further discussed (Work on creating open specifications for building blocks of the envisioned common platforms should be facilitated). Eduardo Carrasco from Vicomtech presented the OpenURC initiative to provide an enabler for accessibility. It was remarked that (1) the FI-PPP currently was not developing such an enabler, (2) OpenURC was itself a platform (which could perhaps be integrated in the larger FI platform), (3) a liaison between OpenURC and the FI-WARE could be useful. Antonio Kung further remarked that if successful, OpenURC enablers could be described through the Infinity common description framework

Measure 4 (The sustainability of the common platforms that underpin ecosystems should be promoted by supporting open, not-for-profit associations of stakeholders) was then discussed. Antonio Kung made the point that AALOA is still currently an informal community mainly supported by the resources of the universAAL project. Support for longer period is needed. He also mentioned the AAL-Fi workshop which took place the day before in Amsterdam were it was remarked that AALOA was probably a facilitator organization that would be useful to living labs and that an MoU between ENOLL and AALOA could be of interest. AALOA could help in the organization of technology communities that would contribute technology enablers for living labs.

Measure 7 (A long-term consensus building process should be initiated in the AAL community, aimed at making it possible for applications built on top of common platforms to provide value to each other) was finally discussed. It was pointed out that consensus building at living lab level would necessitate resources and organization that was difficult to provide. Antonio Kung mentioned the exemple of the pollution prevention directive the implementation of which required a consensus process between chemical process operators and environmentalists. This process  was managed by a staff of the EC in Sevilla.

Luis Lain finally presented the interoperability description framework of MonAMI (called OSGi4AMI) and the intention to promote it within AALOA. Antonio Kung remarked that the relationship with the Infinity Common description framework would be worth discussing

Conclusion.

Antonio Kung asked the audience whether some specific action could be carried out at the Spanish Level. José Tomas Romero (Ametic) suggested to ensure that national platforms and contact be informed so that they could perhaps themselves promote its content.

 

 

Comment by Saied Tazari on October 4, 2011 at 8:35

 

With regard to the needed changes as pointed in Antonio's minutes from the meeting in Lecce, I am integrating the following in the final text:

 

• New way of formulating the measure #2 (thanks to Joe):
  
  New programmes should include activities such as testing of competing technological enablers with respect to their usability and reliability under real-life conditions (e.g. by using living labs), providing tool support, and facilitating lean development processes. This will help R&D results to mature and provide evidence of reusability.
  
  
• New way of formulating the measure #8:
  
  Education and training should be developed or adapted to take account of what results from the above recommendations in order to train workforces that know the underlying technological enablers readily, thus reducing the long-term uptake costs for stakeholders.

I hope, most of you are fine with this.

Comment by Saied Tazari on October 4, 2011 at 8:12

List of projects supporting the Lecce Declaration in order of announcement (as of Oct 3rd, 12:09):

1. CASALA & CASALA Living Lab, Ireland National Project, http://www.casala.ie/
2. APSIS4all, CIP Project, http://www.apsis4all.eu/
3. ATIS4all, CIP Project, http://www.atis4all.eu/
4. HOMEdotOLD, AAL JP Project
5. VITAL, FP6 Project, http://www.ist-vital.org/
6. SeniorEngage, AAL JP Project, http://seniorengage.eu/
7. Easy Line+, FP6 Project, http://www.easylineplus.com/
8. OASIS, FP7 Project, http://www.oasis-project.eu/
9. MonAMI, FP6 Project, http://www.monami.info/
10. ExCITE, AAL JP Project, http://www.oru.se/excite
11. Care@Home, AAL JP Project
12. DOMEO, AAL JP Project, http://www.aal-domeo.org/
13. IS-ACTIVE, AAL JP Project, http://www.is-active.eu/
14. universAAL, FP7 Project, http://www.universaal.org/
15. Osteolink, AAL JP Project, http://www.osteolink.org/
16. HAPPY AGEING, AAL JP Project
17. REMOTE, AAL JP Project, http://www.remote-project.eu/
18. ENTRANCE
19. V2me, AAL JP Project, http://www.v2me.org/
20. WohnSelbst, German National Project, http://www.wohnselbst.de/
21. AALuis, AAL JP Project, http://www.aaluis.eu/
22. RAALI, German National Project, http://www.raali.de/en/home
23. MIDAS, EU ITEA-2 Project, http://www.midas-project.com/
24. NACODEAL, AAL JP Project, http://www.e-seniors.asso.fr/EU_nacodeal_EN.htm
25. VAALID, FP7 Project, http://www.vaalid-project.org/
26. AAS-Platform, Luxembourger SME, http://aas-platform.com/
27. CapMouse, AAL JP Project, http://www.brusell-dental.com/aal
28. BEDMOND, AAL JP Project, http://www.bedmond.eu/
29. CCE, AAL JP Project, http://www.cceproject.eu
30. GUIDE, FP7 Project, http://www.guide-project.eu/
31. openURC Alliance, http://www.openurc.org
32. M3W, AAL JP Project
33. i2home, FP6 Project, http://www.i2home.org/
34. Netcarity, FP6 Project, http://www.netcarity.org/
35. CompanionAble, FP7 Project, http://www.companionable.net/
36. CARE, AAL JP Project, http://care-aal.eu/
37. HERA, AAL JP Project, http://www.aal-hera.eu/
38. eVITA, Hungarian National Technology Platform, http://evitaplatform.hu/en/
39. SRS, FP7 Project, http://www.srs-project.eu/
40. Join-In, AAL JP Project, http://www.join-in-for-all.eu/
41. optimAAL, German National Project
42. AQUEDUC, French National Project, http://www.projet-aqueduc.eu/
43. SAAPHO, AAL JP Project, http://www.saapho.eu/
44. Integrasys, S.A. from ELDERHOP consortium, AAL JP Project

Comment by Antonio Kung on September 27, 2011 at 9:01

Try it again:

 

This is a short report from the group side-event at AAL Forum 2011

 

Participants: about 40

1. Ratification of the Declaration

The general target and the 9 measures were in general ratified; the following minor changes were agreed to be incorporated:

• the 2nd measure should incorporate explicit hints about
  • usability being already an aspect in stress testing
  • the purpose of "stress testing", to help R&D results to mature and provide evidence of reusability

-> Mr. Joe Gorman kindly accepted to provide a new wording

for the second measure

• the 8th measure is not very clear about the relationship between education and stakeholders; especially, clarify in a concise way that the stakeholders are not going to be trained. Rather they need get convinced of the benefits

-> Mr. Hein de Graaf kindly accepted to provide a new wording

for the 8th measure

2. Regarding the Open Comment by Mr. Dirk Elias

The meeting agrees that the Lecce Declaration has not followed any comprehensive approach to the problem of the advent of AAL but has dealt with it from a high-level technological perspective in the focused objective to provide constructive comments to EIP-AHA. There are certainly other pillars of AAL to take care of. It is foreseen that similarly to the way the high-level technological "working group" worked towards identifying the related priorities, other working groups can be created that define priorities and suggestions for other pillars of AAL, e.g., the economical, the socio-political, and the user involvement strategies.

3. Regarding Mr. Jesus Bermejo's comment about missing any notion of open source in the declaration (comment posted only to the AALOA supporters mailing list)

The meeting agrees that open source is one possible approach to the 9th measure on IPR management and hence might be more appropriate for a next level of detail when the measure is implemented. The group should consider this comment in later stages.

4. The way forward

• the working group can transfer its main activity to AALOA Web site and use the page on aalforum.eu for posting news; AALOA is requested to dedicate a mailing list and a Web area to the working group in which the organizing committee of the WG has enough administrative freedom for shaping the work. Other people from the community are encouraged to create similar working groups to work on the priorities in other areas. They can then ask AALOA for similar resources.
• the community is encouraged to consider the set of measures in the declaration as a sort of guideline for developing new ideas / proposing new projects
• use the 1st plenary session of tomorrow and the session E2 to create a channel between this working group and EIP-AHA

Cheers

 

Antonio Kung. Chair of the session

Comment by Hein de Graaf on September 26, 2011 at 17:56

I see that the comments of Dirk more or less are covering my comments I made this morning. I should have jumped in earlier I now discover, sorry that I didn't. But I admire and support the initiatve.

Comment by Hein de Graaf on September 26, 2011 at 17:54

i promised to put in changes this morning, but i can't find where. So leave it as it is. I am available if there ever is a declaration addition where the emphais is in the user and his or her expectations and views on the changing world around them.

Comment by Joe Gorman on September 26, 2011 at 13:11

Proposed change to wording of recommendation number two (following discussion at meeting in Lecce):

 

New programmes should include activities such as testing of competing technological enablers with respect to their usability and reliability under real-life conditions (e.g. by using living labs), providing tool support, and facilitating lean development processes.

Comment by Saied Tazari on September 20, 2011 at 23:20

Interesting coincidence

 

In the published program of the Forum, I just encountered that the presentation of Antonio in E2 is just after the following plenary session:

 

Comment by Saied Tazari on September 16, 2011 at 11:17

Dear LD supporters,

 

the DOC was thinking that the 90 minutes of the side event in Lecce on Sep 26th can be used in the following way:

1. Short intro and report (15 minutes)
2. Ratification of the LD (45 minutes)
3. The way forward (30 minutes)

Dirk's comments, however, caused some doubts within the DOC that the weight of the third slot might need to be increased because on one side it seems that we won't be able to make major changes in a meeting anyhow, and on the other side projects supporting the LD are most probably supporting it not just blindly and hence any major change would necessitate that we ask the projects again to check the changes and this could bring us in a never-ending cycle. On the contrary, if we are able to agree on the way forward, we might be able to better serve the comments that go beyond the current declaration.

We would like to know the opinion of the people that plan to attend the LD side event so that we can adapt the schedule accordingly.

 

Kind regards,

DOC

Comment by Reza Razavi on September 16, 2011 at 9:00

Hi Dirk,

Thanks for your detailed and interesting comments, which would be very helpful if it would be possible to formulate in terms of possible ‘measures’ for an ‘enhanced set of recommendations’ as mentioned by Saied and Francesco (although, I should probably stress that I’m not talking in the name of AALOA, neither universAAL or DOC). In particular, your observations regarding the involvement of end-users and their organizations, as well as technology reuse.

With this respect, we know that technology integration is itself often a hard task. Let me just emphasize that, in particular, in the case of workflow management, there are serious studies, e.g. http://micro-workflow.com/phdthesis/, that show how it has been difficult until recent years to implement software applications that combine object-oriented (and eventually web) with work-flow management (required in many AAL services). I'm not sure if the issue has been really addressed in the meantime (that study goes back to 2000). 

Also, regarding the language for describing processes, I strongly believe that the design, description and deployment of AAL services should be opened to the end-users themselves, and not kept as a privilege for professional programmers. This entails process description languages that are accessible to non-technical end-users, and produce readily executable specifications, for which, to the best of my knowledge, there are no standard solutions yet (which is a surprise indeed!?).  

I hope getting a chance to explore in more details these topics with you in Lecce.

Best,

Reza

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page