WP2 Summer Recess Reactivation Meeting

How to get there

By train Namur is on the line from Brussels to Luxembourg as well as on the line from Liege to Mons.

The Faculty of Computer Science is at a 10 minutes walk from Namur train station. Once you are at this station, take the exit “Centre ville” which is the one close to plateform 1. Leaving the building, cross the street and turn right and then go straight away for a few hundred meters. Turn left just before the tunnel; cross the “rue de Bruxelles” at the traffic lights and go down in “Rempart de la Vierge”, along the park. An entrance on your left is marked “Faculte de Droit”; enter it, cross the parking, go down the street a bit, you will find the pedestrian entrance of the Faculty of Computer Science.

By car

Namur is located close to the crossing of two highways: E411 linking Brussels to Luxembourg and E42 linking Mons to Liege. According to the place you come from you can leave, on the one hand, the E411 at the exits 13 “Champion” and 14 “Bouge” and, on the other hand, the E42 at the exit 12 “Rhisnes”. Following the instructions below, these exists will respectively lead you to enter the center of Namur at the places referred to by “Liege E42 - Louvain N91 - Bruxelles E411”, “Hannut N80 - Liege E42”, “Bruxelles N4 - Mons - Paris E42” on this map.

  • Coming from the exit 13 “Champion” on the E411: Follow the main road in the direction of Namur. Pass on the bridge over the railways and turn to the right in the direction of the station. Then take the left lane and go under a short tunnel (*) and just after turn left (to “Universite”) between the river Sambre and a park. Take the first left and then the first right. After a few meters you will find on the left the entrance of the parking of the Faculty of Computer Science.
  • Coming from the exit 14 “Bouge” on the E411: Follow the main road in the direction of Namur. After about 3 km, you will see a rail bridge. Turn right there in the direction of “Gare” (station in French). Use the right lane and go under a bridge (actually the bridge mentioned for the exit 13). Pass the station and then go under a short tunnel (*) and just after turn left (to “Universite”) between the river Sambre and a park. Take the first left and then the first right. After a few meters you will find on the left the entrance of the parking of the Computer Science Faculty.
  • Coming from the exit 12 “Namur Ouest” on the E42: Follow the main road to the direction of Namur. After about 5 km, you will pass on a bridge. At the first red lights after the bridge, turn right (*) and then take the first to the left (to “Universite”). You are between the river Sambre and a park. Take again the first to the left and then the first to the right. After a few meters you will find on the left the entrance of the parking of the Faculty of Computer Science.

Please note that you have to park at the parking visitors situated “rue Henri Lemaitre”. To reach it, at point (*) of the above description, go straight ahead instead of turning left. Pass a first round-about and at the second round-about take the 4th exit on your left. You should be in the “Avenue Reine Astrid”. Take the first street to the left. You are in “rue Henri Lemaitre”. The parking is located on your left.

From the parking visitors, go right, then take the first on the left, pass the pedestrian bridge across the river Sambre. After crossing the street, you are in “Rue Bruno”. Take the first left to reach “Rue Grandgagnage”, the Faculty of Computer Science is in front of you.

You can also have a look at this Google Map: How to come to the Faculty of Computer Science

Participants

  • UA
    • Serge Demeyer
    • Sylvain Degrandsart
  • FUNDP
    • Andreas Classen
    • Quentin Boucher
    • Patrick Heymans
    • Vincent Englebert
    • Raimundas Matulevicius
    • Nicolas Genon
    • Fabian Gilson
    • Germain Saval
    • Jonathan Lemaitre
  • KUL
    • Stefan van Baelen
    • Bert Vanhooff
    • Aram Housepyan
  • VUB
    • Sofie Goderis
    • Dirk Deridder
    • Dennis Wagelaar
    • Andres Yie
    • Mario Sanchez
  • UMH
    • Tom Mens
    • Jorge Pinna Puissant
    • Michaël Hoste

Context

A number of cooperations have been initiated and need to be followed-up. New ph.d. students have started and need to be integrated. We also need to increase our visibility.

Outcome

  • Status report on recent collaborations
  • Identification of new collaborations (new ph.d. students)
  • Action plan for increasing visibility

Agenda

  • 11:00 - 12:00 status report on the various collaboration projects identified earlier
    1. Cooperation between MetaDone and PADUS
      • (*) Vincent Englebert and ...
    2. Cooperation between KUL and UA on implementing a workflow model (resulting from the DelAOP presentation)
      • (*–no reporter confirmed presence–*) Hans Schippers and Mathieu Braem
    3. Planning between KUL and UA for two students to specify wizards in UniTi using models (resulting from the MotMot presentation)
      • (*) Bert Vanhooff [and Pieter Van Gorp]
    4. Dirk Deridder would go to Namur to collaborate with Nicolas Genon.
      • (*) Dirk Deridder and Nicolas Genon
    5. Andres from the VUB would contact Bert Van Hoof from the KUL on traceability.
      • (*) Bert Van Hoof and Andres ...
    6. (*) before the name(s) above means that these persons have confirmed their presence and will report
  • 12:00 - 12:30 lunch break
  • 12:30 - 13:30 welcome of newcomers
    • With the start of a new year, new ph.d. students with a potential interest in Modelling Languages and Restructuring have joined the various teams.
    • Each newcomer is asked to present his plan for ph.d. research in +- 10 minutes (without discussion). At the end of each presentation should be one slide where the newcomer states what kind of help/input/ideas/... he or she would like to receive fomr the MoVES network
    • identification of potential new collaborations
  • 13:15 - 14:00 visibility:
    • CFP: newsletter
      • One of the deliverables for the project is a quarterly newsletter (about 4 A4 pages) containing short paragraph descriptions of the kind of work that we are doing. I was hoping that we could start with WP2 to kick off.
    • Brainstorm ideas to increase the visibility of our work. Perhaps organize a workshop ?

Minutes

General

  • We should decide on joint papers / events
  • MoVES yearly event: 1 overview presentation per WP (theme,past future plans) + poster session
  • Please upload your presentations
  • We should come up with a joint umbrella for the WP in which we more clearly precise what our interest is in the context of modelling languages/restructuring. A mission statement would be nice to have for the yearly event presentation.

Status report

  1. Cooperation between MetaDone and PADUS
    • Mathieu Braem (SSEL) is not going to continue his activities in the MoVES network
    • There was an ongoing collaboration with Nicolas Genon to represent Padus in Metadone (a metacase tool). Do we still want to pursue this? If so then Nicolas will need a metamodel of padus to be able to do that. Maybe Niels Joncheere can provide his metamodel (related to padus) to see how far they can go (it would be a nice casestudy)
  2. Cooperation between KUL and UA on implementing a workflow model (resulting from the DelAOP presentation)
    • There was a wild idea to build padus on top of the virtual machine infrastructure of Hans Schippers (UA). Currently this train of thought is no longer pursued.
  3. Planning between KUL and UA for two students to specify wizards in UniTi using models (resulting from the MotMot presentation)
    • On hold, no concrete progress. A new PhD student will take over the work, so actions will be taken in the coming weeks.
  4. Dirk Deridder would go to Namur to collaborate with Nicolas Genon.
    • DirkD will set up a meeting with Nicolas Genon to combine the power of cobro/metadon. Preferrably before the yearly event. He will also invite Sofie Goderis.
  5. Andres from the VUB would contact Bert Van Hoof from the KUL on traceability.
    • They will investigate how they can concretely collaborate.

Conclusions of the meeting

  • Apparantly there are quite a lot of potential collaborations. Please sit together and investigate this further...
  • Newsletter? (chair is Serge).
    • Maybe in the beginning only 3 per year – the target audience is open, but in the first year it will be limited to all the CS departments in Belgium. We prefer to follow a phased approach (targetting the non-member institutions is a bit premature
    • the newsletter would in a first place be targeted at the researchers in the network research groups – who are not necessarily already involved/aware)
    • Format 2 double sided A4 pages: one page about a particular institute, one page about a particular WP
    • Mission statement?
      • Incorporation of software quality attributes at the modelling level
      • Incorporation of non-functional requirements
      • We will need to work on this during the next meeting
  • The next meeting will be hosted by K.U. Leuven mid-November (after MoVES event).

Presentations

  1. Fabian Gilson (FUNDP)
    • GOAL : How to model distributed IS with their non functional requirements and infrastructure constraints?
    • Existing ADLs typically do not focus on the NFRs
    • Challenge:
      • mixing conceptual, software and hardware related concepts
      • how to express architecture qualities with attributes
      • how to structure / categorize quality attributes
      • how to specify (semi-) automated transformations from coarse-grained to fine-grained architecture.
    • Q) Do you plan to remain at the modelling part of incorporating the NFRs in the architecture?
    • Q) Do you plan to treat them as variation points? E.g. generate a different system depending on performance quality.
    • Q) You are actually addressing NFRs as a kind of variation point for the system – will you use a kind of feature diagram?
    • Q) THE IODASS / ... system: is this a kind of middleware? Or do you generate totally different components based on the quality attributes you want? The latter, they want to generate the system so that is serves the quality attributes as specified
    • L) Dennis focuses on platform which is also a kind of architectural constraint (NFR)
    • L) Andres is also interested in researching how we can give the focus of the modelling a flavor of the NFRs involved.
    • L) A possible link is towards Lille (Laurence Duchien)? Middleware support (e.g. limiting the size of images transferred over the network) So maybe fundp should consider him to present at the yearly event? He should contact the people from the group of Laurence Duchien
  2. Sylvain Degrandsart (UA) - transforming human interface design by MDE
    • MDE applied to context-sensitive interactive applications
    • Q) So overall you want to come up with a formalisation of ConcurTaskTrees - what is the underlying goal? For verification or to be able to transform the trees into a working implementation.
    • Q) What is the actual application domain you have in mind for the concurtasktrees? Since this will limit the scope of the formalisation. (e.g. for guided museum tours, vs a wide range of things that can be interpreted as “context”)
    • L) We had a project with the university of Hasselt, who are working on ConcurTaskTree... so it might be interesting to look into a collaboration with the group over there. Apparantly this is a joint project they have with Hasselt. (contact Dennis)
    • L) FUNDP can provide some pointers / best practices / ... about formalising a modeling language (they have extensive expertise in this area).
    • L) Thierry Massart (ULB) might provide a lot of expertise on the use of LOTOS
  3. Andres Yie (VUB) - Multistep concern transformation
    • Q) How can you assess the impact of adding a security element in the transformation line?
    • Q) Aram : Do you have other NFRs in mind besides the access control?
    • L) Olaf Muliawan, Anne Keller have been working on traceability in the past at UA - contact them...
    • L) Bert (KUL) is interested and will send a paper to Andres so they can maybe look at the different views they have. This requires some folow up.
    • L) Maybe find a connection to Aram (KUL)
    • L) In the longer term there might be a connection to Fabian (FUNDP)
    • Note: maybe we can find a common case that can be reused by the different people
  4. Aram (KUL) - Aspect Oriented Modeling
    • AOP concerns remain at the code level – his challeng is to investigate whether it is possible to raise them to the modelling level.
    • When you use AOP at the modelling level – shouldn’t you also incorporate information about the program generators used to transform the models into code? (cf andres)
    • The different Q’s and L’s are similar as for the presentation by Andres.
  5. UMH (Jorge Pinas Puissant and Michael Hoste)
    • As far as we can see the work fits into WP4 and WP2 – one of them will mainly contribute to the other WP (topic inconsistencies) – wheres the other will mainly contribute to this one (refactoring).
meetings/meeting4.txt · Last modified: 2008/10/14 13:03 by andres.yie