COPRAS aggregate results call 2

Outline

Open development platforms

Open development platforms

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

  • Open source middleware
  • Specifications & case studies
  • Interoperability tests
  • Proposed solutions (algorithms)

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:

  • - Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
  • - (Semantic) Web Services, Semantic Web
  • - Domain Specific Ontology
  • - Business Process and Workflow Technologies
  • - Grid Computing
  • - Model Driven Architecture
  • In some cases the usage of standards within ASG could result in enhance-ments/profiling of existing standards.

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:

  • - C-1: Domain Specific Ontologies
  • - C-2: (Semantic) Web Services
  • - C-3: Model Driven Architecture
  • - C-4: Business Process and Workflow Technologies, Service Oriented Architec-ture (SOA)
  • - C-5: Web Services, Grid Computing

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

  • Global Grid Forum
  • W3C
  • WS-BPEL

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.

  • Web technology, web services SOA
  • Business process technology
  • GRID computing
  • Model Driven Architecture

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)

  • Technology
  • Standard enhancement
  • Ontologies

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

Cognitive Systems

Cognitive Systems

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

Embedded Systems

Embedded Systems

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

Mobile User and Worker

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

Cross Media Content

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.

GRID Systems

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

Improving Risk Management

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

eInclusion

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


ISTweb Rigo Wenning, Bert Bos
Created: 2 May 2005; modified: $Date: 2006/10/25 16:01:34 $