From: I. Pitas (pitas@zeus.csd.auth.gr)
Date: Thu 06 Mar 2003 - 09:36:21 GMT
Dear Prof. Kazakov, according to your message, I would propose to form a STREP instead of a NoE. STREP funds research, whereas NoE funds mostly integration. Please keep me informed. Sincerely yours I. Pitas At 07:34 μμ 5/3/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Dear ALAMAS partners, > >here is a suggestion about our next actions with respect to the FP6 >CfP, based on the discussion and everyone's comments made in >Barcelona. I apologise for the apparent inactivity - apart from >dealing with the AAMAS-3 submissions, we have made further enquiries >about the current state of the seemingly changing rules of the game, >and received important and somewhat unexpected comments. The most >important of these concerns the role of an FP6 NoE: the number of >expected partners seems to have been reduced, and the focus is now on >integration rather than research achievements as such. > > >After detailed discussion with the University of York European Liaison >Officer we could not eliminate any of the types of project one could >apply for. We agreed that there is a clear potential to prepare a >potentially strong STREP in any of the areas discussed in Barcelona, >namely, Transport/Traffic, Interactive Entertainment (Games), >Financial Market Tools, etc. I should thank here everyone who has >started distributing information to the mailing list or outlining a >STREP proposal (Eduardo Alonso, Piotr Lipinski, Jean-Pierre >George...). At the same time, the expected overlap and potential >synergy between these STREP proposals show potential for a successful >IP. The two options would not be mutually exclusive, but the advantage >of an IP is its longer duration (4-5 years as opposed to a 2-3 year >STREP), which in our case would allow us to advance considerably more >the technology before we go for the specific, measurable deliverables >that either project should yield at the end. > >Further, the ALAMAS EoI could relatively easily be presented as an >application for a co-ordination action (CA, the former thematic >network). With the constantly growing number of research groups >contacting us every week -- some of which have a strong research >record on adaptive and learning agents -- the case for a large network >supporting discussion, dissemination and short exchanges looks >stronger by the day. > >Finally, one could consider a focussed NoE which necessarily includes >a smaller group of partners willing to co-operate to the extent as to >be willing to change some of their research priorities in order to >achieve better integration (and have vice-chancellors/rectors or >whatever else name the head of the institution might have who are >willing to sign a contract with clauses such as -- pay back up to 2 >years' worth of EU funding if the goals are not met...). > >It is also possible to combine some of these proposals and we should >consider these, e.g., to submit a number of STREP proposals >accompanied/followed by a proposal for a CA that ties them up together. > > > >Here is what I am prepared to do next (with the help of Daniel and >Eduardo, as well as everyone else who already volunteered to send >input or wants to do so now): > >(by 12 March): prepare a very condensed outline of each of the >possible *types* of proposal, and with the help of our EU liaison >officer, give them a rough evaluation using the Commission marking >scheme, and select the most promising type(s) of proposal. Please send >me the outlines of any STREP you have got so far in order to >incorporate its goals as WPs (work-packages) of a possible IP. > >(by 15 March): Contact the appropriate EU strategic objective officers >about > > - whether they find the topic of our proposal relevant to their > strategic objective (approach recommended by the Commission) > > - which type of proposal would better fit their expectations (in > case we are still hesitating between various options). > >At around this stage I expect to have a favourite large-size proposal >(IP, NoE, CA) to which everyone concerned would start to contribute. > > > >(by 30 March): Meet with the EU officers who have sent an encouraging >reply. This opportunity could also be used to meet with some of the >partners, as we can arrange to book a meeting room in Brussels (e.g., >a further discussion with Robonetics about their role and expectations >would be very helpful). > >(10-11 April): Face-to-face discussion of the proposals at the AAMAS-3 >symposium. > > >Aim: submit one or more proposals by: > > - 24 April (if the IST-transport and/or FET pro-active call is >targeted) and/or > > - mid-May (the next cut-off line for the open call submissions). > > >I would be thankful for any comments on this or contributions to the >documents being prepared. > > >Best greetings, > >Dimitar Kazakov >-- >Dr Dimitar Kazakov >Lecturer in Machine Learning > >AIG, Dept. of Computer Science >University of York >Heslington, York >YO10 5DD, UK >tel. +44 (0)1904 43 4775 >fax: +44 (0)1904 43 2767 >http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~kazakov/