ArtistDesign Year3 Review

February 23-24, 2011      Brussels, Belgium

Reviewers’ Recommendations

These recommendations are taken from the Reviewer’s Y2 Report.

8.1 Recommendation 1:

Previous Y1-recommendation 2 is to be reconsidered.

The Common Technical Baseline is extremely promising. In fact, it would be useful considering extending its goal and scope, and creating an international activity patterned after the UMLS (Unified Medical Language System) in the medical field.
( It could be an interesting topic for US-EU collaborative activities, and very beneficial for the educational organizations.

8.2 Recommendation 2:

Previous Y1-recommendation 3:
Concerning technical deliverable for Year 2 reporting period onwards and in order to avoid redundancy, we would like to propose the possibility of having just incremental documents containing what is new for that reporting period and referring to previous year’s documents for the unchanged sections.
Taken into consideration mentioning the evolution or not of the content of paragraphs with respect to Y1 deliverables.
It would be beneficial having a standard presentation: The indication on what has changed between Y1 deliverable and Y2 deliverable would benefit to be always either at the beginning of the chapter (3.1.2) or at the end (3.2.1), as this eases clearly the analysis of the document.

8.3 Recommendation 3:

Put emphasis on links on levers towards Industry standardization organizations, as this is a key lever to spread and get visibility and feedback on the works and achievements.
Preparing the future is a key task for Y3, so the good work and network will not fade away.

8.4 Recommendation 4:

Presentations during the review meeting should be shorter, leaving more time for interaction.

8.5 Recommendation 5:

About modelling and validation:
- Tool integration should go beyond individual projects; the team should at least formulate conditions for integrability
- One should think about the solution for "saving the tools" produced by the community as outcome of research

8.6 Recommendation 6:

About Synthesis_Code_Generation_and_Timing_Analysis:
- There is a need for a vision for new generation of software synthesis and code generation tools,
- There should be a deeper integration of results inside the cluster,
- A better structured interface with other clusters (operating systems, hardware platforms, etc.) is welcome.

8.7 Recommendation 7:

In the framework of Operating Systems and Networks:
- It seems that increased interaction with the Modelling cluster would be beneficial. OS and network properties are essential for composition and verification, so the opportunity for interaction is there.

8.8 Recommendation 8:

In the framework of hardware and MPSoC design:
- Increased interaction with software synthesis and code generation
- Approaches for platform modelling: how to do it to help software synthesis?

8.9 Recommendation 9:

Progress of the clusters design for adaptivity and predictability would be stimulated by writing an annual position paper about the new/emerging insights. This is a very complex issue and taking stock periodically of the status of current thinking would be very helpful not only for the cluster but also for the research community.

8.10 Recommendation 10:

ARTEMIS link is somewhat fuzzy. This should be improved or clarified.

(c) Artist Consortium, All Rights Reserved - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

Réalisation Axome - Création de sites Internet