CORDIS Archive
This page has been archived. It will no longer be updated.
The current versions of many of the scope sheets are incomplete or provide only the most cursory information about the objectives and rationale of the guideline. Indeed more detail was provided in some of the chain reports to the November Concertation Steering Group meeting. Some of the observations presented below may be incorrect and the issue is actually being addressed by the guideline but they indicate the kind of questions that need to be considered by the chains at their next meetings.
A logical relationship between the proposed guidelines is presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
General Observations
The BAE-G1, BAM-G1 and BAS-G1 guidelines should investigate particular types of Access solution and the BAC-G1 guideline should consider which solution is appropriate where and when. BAS2 looks specifically at new RTD requirements. Requirements for future R&D should also be derived from the BAE-G1 and BAM-G1 work and presented as an input to the 5th framework discussions. There may even be urgent issues that could be addressed in the ACTS 3rd call.
It will be seen that most of the proposed guidelines have multiple recipients. More specifically focused guidelines need to be derived for each target group. Indeed several guidelines may be needed to cover the interests of a given target group (e.g. functional architecture, reference configurations and evolution strategies for network operators).
Note that
Gaps
Overlaps
Consistency Issues
The BAS-G1 guideline in particular needs to take account of developments outside Europe.
The relationship between theguidelines proposed by the NI chain group is presented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
General Observations
The overlaps between the circles are not meant to suggest duplication of work. They represent areas in which the developers of individual guidelines need to agree interfaces and ensure that they are presenting consistent viewpoints.
It will be seen that most of the proposed guidelines have multiple recipients. More specifically focused guidelines need to be derived for each target group.
The NIA Chain is developing recommendations on ATM accounting which will be of particular interest to Network Operators, Service Providers and, probably, Regulators. There may also be inputs to standards bodies. These will have implications for the NIF activity (fixed-mobile interworking) and for NIG activity (global network interoperability). The NIF NIG and NIM chains' work will interest the same groups of actors but may also produce proposals for future R&D which will be of interest to the Commission and National RTD agencies. In addition the NIG guideline may have messages for the Commission concerning the realisation of Trans European Networks. There should be a particularly close coupling between NIG1 and the NIM activities on management system interoperabillity and a rather looser coupling to the SIA work on service architectures.
Many of the guidelines do not envisage endorsement and release until near the end of the ACTS programme. This may be too late to influence key decisions on network architecture and infrastructure investment.
Gaps
Overlaps
General Observations
The individual chains focus on particular user communities or interest groups. Each should produce a set of messages for:
There may also be messages for regulators about how to encourage the early uptake of advanced services and messages for the Commission about gaps in technology or issues that need to be resolved at the European level. There will certainly be messages for user communities about what they can expect to be offered in the next few years and about the implications of new technology for the way in which they do business. These may include invitations to sign up to Memoranda of Understanding, Codes of Practice or User Fora.
Once again the proposed set of guidelines needs to be structured according to readership and timescale. It is worth noting that the GAM chain has taken significant steps in this direction, although many of their proposed guidelines still target several reader groups.
Usability will be a key issue for the GA chain group. Guideline developers are encouraged to consult USINACTS for guidance on best practice. They may also find that FAIR and TEESAURA have useful input on marketing and techno- or socio-economic issues.
Gaps
| Aerospace Industry | VANTAGE/DIVINE/MULTICUBE |
| Automotive industry | TEAM/MULTICUBE |
| Construction Industry | CICC/MICC/MEMO |
| Education | BONAPARTE/SCALAR/IBCoBN/RENAISSANCE/LEVERAGE/IMMP/PROSPECT |
| Financial dealers | THESEUS |
| Healthcare | EXODUS/IBCoBN/EMERALD/DIANE/TRUMPET |
| Lawyers | SEMPER |
| Museums | SICMA |
| Parliamentarians | EPRIWATCH |
| Ports and Harbours | EIES |
| Publishing | ONTHEMOVE/MEMO/MULTIMEDIATOR |
| Retail | TELESHOPPE |
| Social Services | KIMSAC |
| Software developers | TECODIS |
Overlaps
Consistency Issues.
It is worth noting that this is by far the largest of the chain groups and the four active chains within it have largely independent programmes of activity.
General Observations
This chain proposes four guidelines addressing:
Product and service developers are seen as the principal recipients of the first three and business development/operations as the principal recipients of the work on enterprise modelling. In practice, the service architecture and enterprise models will also be of considerable interest to network operators and regulators. They will also require ratification by some kind of standards body. It is likely that the information will need to be repackaged and indeed re-interpreted for each of these groups of readers.
If one looks at the overall process for developing a service architecture (Fig. 3.)
Fig.3
It is accepted the SIA chain will be unable to complete the activity within the timeframe of the ACTS programme. However most of the interested parties cannot wait until the end of 1998 for information and earlier more tightly focused deliverables are needed.
Even at the end of ACTS there will be unresolved issues and gaps in the available technology. There should be recommendations to the Commission for follow-up RTD. The partial or provisional service architecture emerging from the SIA work will have implications for Trans European Networks and these need to be made clear to the Commission and the actors involved in designing those networks.
Overlaps
Consistency issues
General Observations
The five guidelines proposed by the SII chain consider various aspects of the delivery of interactive multimedia services (See Fig 4).
Fig.4
There are messages for several user groups
Gaps
Overlaps
The chain proposes a guideline on the introduction of telepresence and shared virtual environments. If it could:
The chain could also give network operators an idea of the requirements which telepresence services will place on them. There will almost certainly be messages for the Commission about RTD tasks to be incorporated in future framework programmes. There should be considerable synergy between the SID-G1 activity and the virtual studio/distributed production activity in SIC-G1 chain.
The guidelines proposed by this chain should be of interest to all those involved in application or service development. There may also be messages for standards bodies about preferred formats for individual components of plurimedia productions and about languages for plurimedia scripts. The activity needs to take account of the service architecture (SIA-G1)and enterprise models (SIA-G3)being developed by the SIA chain. There should be considerable synergy between the virtual studio/distributed production activity in SIC-G1 and the SID-G1 activity on virtual environments.
There will also be some synergy with the activities of the GAM chain, notably GAM-G5 on set-top boxes.
Prepared by Hill Stewart - Concertation Steering Group Rapporteur on 6 February 1997