[AG-TECH] Is Retreat broadcasted on AG ??

[Osland, CD (Chris)]

I can understand the logistic reasons you put forward, but will
just make the point that an increasing number of sites using or
about to use the Access Grid system are not based in the US, so
the total cost of coming to the retreat for us is well into four
figures (in a currency of your choice - dollars, pounds or euros).
Unfortunately the cheap fares from the UK tend to be to New York
or Florida, and fares to California are still quite high.  So
as much AG-related material as possible being available online -
even if not real-time - would really be appreciated.

For interest, today's beacon status shows

US (.edu 42, .gov 14, .mil 2, .org 4) 62
United Kingdom (.uk)                  10
Canada (.ca)                           3
Norway (.no)                           2
China (I assume) (.cn)                 2
Netherlands (.nl)                      1
.net (varies, one is in UK!)          12

and Australia and Japan are regularly in the Lobby,
although I don't see any beacons from them.

Cheers

Chris Osland

____________________________________________________________________
Chris Osland                         Office tel: +44 (0) 1235 446565
Digital Media and Access Grid      Medialab tel: +44 (0) 1235 446459
BIT Department             Access Grid room tel: +44 (0) 1235 445666
e-mail:   C.D.Osland at rl.ac.uk               Fax: +44 (0) 1235 445597

CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (Bldg. R18)
Chilton, DIDCOT, Oxon OX11 0QX, UK

[The contents of this email are confidential and 
are for the use of the intended recipient only.
If you are not the intended recipient do not take 
any action on it or show it to anyone else,
but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.]





-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Stevens [mailto:stevens at mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: 05 January 2002 22:25
To: Satish Devarapalli
Cc: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Is Retreat broadcasted on AG ??


Satish,

We will not be putting the Retreat on the AG for several reasons..

The first reason is that while the AG is about supporting and enabling
wide area collaboration for groups, we recognize and history demonstrates
that the best long-distance relationships are those based on a solid
foundation of face-to-face personal contacts that need opportunity to form
and grow in-person. The AG retreat provides an excellent opportunity for
people interested in the AG to meet in the real world those folks that
many only know via the AG. We want to use this opportunity to encourage
people to get to know each other better and to use the multiple days for
hanging out together in ways that are not yet supported by the AG.

The second reason is that we are not yet completely sure where in San
Deigo the meeting will be (SDSC is working on a location for us hopefully
on UCSD campus, but perhaps in a nearby hotel) and we can't insure that we
will have adequate networking and facilities to support an effective AG
style event.

The third reason is that we haven't yet implemented the AG based
collaborative beer tasting feature that Don mentioned, so we have to do
that part of the retreat in person.

While we dont have any explicity funding for supporting people to attend
the meeting, we can try to help in securing roomates for people that
want to try to double up to save hotel expenses etc.  Also if someone
finds a cheap airfare for this time, please post to the net.  A couple of
months ago I found some tickets from Chicago to southern california for
about $200 round-trip on one of the supersavers..

--Rick

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Satish Devarapalli wrote:

> hi all,
> 
> I am just wondering to know if this Retreat is broadcasted on AG. ( Infact
> the AG is all about attending this conferences virtually from our home
place.
> )
> 
> -Satish
> 
> -- Original Message --
> 
> >Randy,
> >
> >These are all good topics to be addressed at the retreat.  We will be
> >organizing the retreat around a set of topics and I think we have most
> >of these items mapped to one or more of the sessions (we just need folks
> >willing to talk about them now :-).. 
> >
> >On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Randy Groves wrote:
> >
> >> Mary's note to submit topics for the retreat has got me thinking.  Some
> >
> >> views from my knothole (with all the restrictions in view that
implies).
> >> 
> >> There has been a good bit of interest in AG technology internally here
> >at 
> >> Boeing.
> >> 
> >> There are some pieces that I haven't heard much about - perhaps I
haven't
> >
> >> been looking in the
> >> right places.  But I think that they are important, and maybe
necessary,
> >
> >> for this technology to compete here with our present video conferencing
> >
> >> setups.  Please excuse any ignorance here - I don't claim to be an
expert
> >
> >> in this.
> >> 
> >> Is there any work being done on whiteboard facilities for the AG?
> >> 
> >> Better (or any) integration with (I know - most people don't like it,
> >but 
> >> it's a given here at Boeing) NetMeeting?  Or with other video
conferencing
> >
> >> packages (Tandberg, Polycom)?
> >
> >
> >A strategy that has is under discussion at ANL about how to do this is
> >via one or more network service gateways that would support
> >interoperability without requiring the AG to down feature.  I think this
> >is a very good topic for discussion.  It is coming up often.  Another
> >package in the research community that is used a lot is VRVS which would
> >need a similar gateway.  At the same time we would like to keep pushing
> >the AG upward in capability so the issue of gateways will become even
more
> >critical in the future.
> >
> >> 
> >> Is there some sort of SDK being worked on that would allow developers
> >to 
> >> more easily add new features to the AG set?  For instance, our
engineers
> >
> >> work with Catia - a tool that could 'wrap' Catia in some way would be
> >a 
> >> definite plus.
> >
> >Yes.  We (ANL) have starting documenting a set of interfaces and
reference
> >architectures that would in principle enable groups to add functionality
> >to the AG services (Node, Venue, etc.)  This area needs a lot of work and
> >we hope to have some white papers to distribute that will help focus the
> >discussion along these lines.  Ideally we need to get two or three groups
> >working together on this.  Another focus for this type of discussion is
> >the Global Grid Forum working group on Advanced Collaboration
> >Environments.  I would be very interested in talking to you more about
> a
> >specific project to wrap Catia as I think it could be used as a model for
> >some other high-impact applications tools.  
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> While I definitely applaud the effort to keep this in the open source
> >realm 
> >> - and I think that this should be continued - it seems to me that
packages
> >
> >> like vic and rat are somewhat showing their age.  Is there any effort
> >
> >> (outside of Microsoft's) to re-do these?  In Java for instance?
> >
> >Yes. We share your view on this.  One alternative that we are looking at
> >seriously is the OpenMASH toolkit.
> >
> >> 
> >> I was talking to Lisa today about Voyager and there were some streams
> >from 
> >> the recent SCGlobal (VR streams and others) that were not recorded. 
> I
> >
> >> don't understand all the details - but it seems one of the problems is
> >one 
> >> of identification and/or standard info in the packets.  Is there any
> work
> >
> >> being done to standardize that?
> >
> >This is an important area to look at.  RTP provides lots of flexibility
> >here.
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> I know that the AG was initially created, and still is pointed toward
> >
> >> supporting, large groups in collaboration.  A good bit of the interest
> >we 
> >> have here internally is toward the other end of the spectrum, even down
> >to 
> >> the desktop.  Perhaps this is a good area of research for a spin-off
> 
> >> working group?  I would definitely like to hear people's experiences
> in
> >
> >> this realm at the retreat (Johnson & Johnson come to mind).
> >
> >
> >We are planning on having an Industry Forum session at the retreat that
> >would be perfect for a series of talks on the needs from Boeing, Johnson
> >and Johnson etc.
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> Usability is another issue that I know people are working on, but it
> will
> >
> >> be one that will come up in internal efforts.  I can see training the
> >
> >> people to become node ops, but I can't see training an executive as a
> >node 
> >> op.  The Tandberg or something similar still wins out here.
> >
> >Amen!
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> (I retreat, after having poked the anthill ...)
> >> 
> >> -randy
> >> 
> >
> >--Rick 
> >
> >
> >> 
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>