1 / 17

UBICOMP- RG BOF II

UBICOMP- RG BOF II. Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz and Nigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona. BOF AGENDA. Introduction Progress Update Report on Activities in the Ubicomp Community Group Discussion Topics Group Report-Backs Summary and Action Points .

merton
Download Presentation

UBICOMP- RG BOF II

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UBICOMP-RG BOF II Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz andNigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona

  2. BOF AGENDA • Introduction • Progress Update • Report on Activities in the Ubicomp Community • Group Discussion Topics • Group Report-Backs • Summary and Action Points

  3. IP POLICY STATEMENT

  4. UBICOMP: A SHORT PRIMER • The vision of the late Mark Weiser in “The Computer for 21st Century”, Scientific American, 1991: “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it”

  5. UBICOMP DOMAIN • Key challenge is promoting ‘natural interaction’ • Narrowing semantic gap between computer and human activity • Computer perception of human centric activity (sensing, context, learning) • Human perception and understanding of the system (affordances, understanding, comprehensibility) • Inherently multidisciplinary (in CS terms) and target domain (art, design, entertainment, work…)

  6. UBICOMP PROJECTS • Many fragmented testbeds in research labs worldwide • Many interpretations of Weiser’s vision • Stanford iRoom, HP Cooltown, UIUC’s Gaia, CMU’s Aura, GaTech’s Aware Home, EU ‘Disapearing Computer’, AT&T sentient computing, LabScape, MIT’s Oxygen • Developing key experimental infrastructures and services • Now mature conferences and (some) journals (e.g. UbiComp)

  7. SYNERGIES & CHALLENGES • Clear synergies with Grid in nascent Ubicomp • Need for similar computational services (c.f. meta-operating system) • Overlapping work (e.g. security, privacy, trust, resource access, storage/ management, etc.) • Support for ubicomp “in the small” and “in the large”.

  8. PROGRESS UPDATE • Following last BOF (GGF9) • Email discussions with AD – asked to proceed with group creation • Established web site http://ubgrid.lancs.ac.uk • Established a mailing list – info on web site. • Solicited contributions from others via the mailing list – low response! • Initiated discussions with Ubicomp community

  9. UbiSys 2003 • Goal: solicit feedback from the ubicomp community • Position paper presented at UbiSys (1st Workshop on Systems Support for Ubiquitous Computing at UbiComp 2003) • paper available at http://ubigrid.lancs.ac.uk • Main arguments: • Ubiquitous computing requires interoperability • “The Grid” might provide a solution • Discussion with fellow researchers working on system support and infrastructures for ubicomp

  10. Feedback Strong consensus regarding the importance of interoperability However, there were doubts about the suitability of Grid technologies: “Why the Grid? The Grid is not catering for our needs!” • Grid is one of many possible platforms • solutions targeted at high-performance distributed computing • heavyweight (OGSI & GT3) • Why not just use Web services?

  11. BOF II AIMS • Encourage active participation within the Grid community • Decide whether there is enough interest to proceed • Create feedback into the Ubicomp community • Produce a summary for IEEE Pervasive

  12. GROUP DISCUSSIONS • The rationale and objectives • encourage participation • identify new issues • maximize bandwidth • provide tangible output • The topics • The process

  13. THE TOPICS • A: Lessons learnt from supporting e-science in other domains • and how it relates to ubicomp. • B: Encouraging user buy-in to the Grid • and how to achieve this for ubicomp. • C: Benefits of establishing a ubicomp-rg to the Grid community

  14. THE TOPICS • D: Visualizing the Grid • models of use of the Grid for non-technical users • E: The Minimal Grid • answering the doubters in the ubicomp community  And all please offer comments on the draft charter

  15. THE PROCESS • Different areas of the room == different topics • Please elect a scribe and a presenter • pick people who have the most interest in actually doing work in the area • Discuss topic and prepare a 5 min feedback presentation • Ideally use ppt or pdf • Include a slide with the names of the group members and identify scribe and presenter.

  16. GO TO YOUR GROUPS • A: Lessons learnt from supporting e-science in other domains • B: Encouraging user buy-in to the Grid • C: Benefits of establishing a ubicomp-rg to the Grid community • D: Visualizing the Grid • E: The Minimal Grid

  17. END - THANKS FOR ATTENDING

More Related