[aaloa supporters] workshop on AAL market breakthrough

[jesus.bermejo at telvent.com]

Hi Said,

> ... there is something that is confusing for me from outside; What is
> the relationship between universAAL and a porting concept?
> [[ I thought, the answer to your question might be interesting for all
> AALOA supporters and added a CC to that list; I hope, you are OK with
> this ]]

I am happy with this clarification openly as it is addressing the platform
as a key issue, as well as the relationship between the platform and
applications (... initially discussed during the AAL wokshop in Lisbon). I
am sure that the open approach will bring interesting debates,

Best regards,
-Jesus-

Mohammad-Reza Tazari <saied.tazari at igd.fraunhofer.de> escribió el
19/05/2011 13:17:56:

>
> Mohammad-Reza Tazari
> 19/05/2011 13:18
>
> Para:
>
> jesus.bermejo at telvent.com
>
> cc:
>
> AALOA Supporters <supporters at aaloa.org>
>
> Asunto:
>
> Re: workshop on AAL market breakthrough
>
> Jesus Bermejo wrote on 19-May-11 09:04:
> > ... there is something that is confusing for me from outside; What is
> > the relationship between universAAL and a porting concept?

> Hi Jesus,

> [[ I thought, the answer to your question might be interesting for all
> AALOA supporters and added a CC to that list; I hope, you are OK with
> this ]]

> It is true that the idea of porting projects was born in the context of
> the universAAL project and until now most of the resources for the
> organization of the workshop have been invested by the universAAL
> partners, but the AALOA governing board accepted to actively support
> this action after making sure that the door is open for other potential
> candidate platforms and even being mentioned as a candidate platform in
> the workshop does not lead to any specific status for any of them
> automatically. Let me explain more:

> We assume that in each porting project, there is a platform to which a
> set of products and services (that were developed independently from
> that platform) will be ported. Local groups of the owners of those
> products and services together with one additional local organization as
> the platform expert can build consortia that submit porting project
> proposals. If such a proposal is successful and a project is
> initialized, we expect that all regional projects that share the same
> target platform are confederated at the EU level, ideally under the
> supervision of a neutral expert appointed by funding bodies. The
> corresponding projects put the selected platform under "stress test" and
> the platform must show its usefulness and "usability" in practice. At
> the end, the supervisor of the confederation must deliver a public
> evaluation report to the funding body in cooperation with the partners
> of the regional consortia (AALOA will naturally benefit from these
> reports very much in its path towards an open source AAL platform).
> Generally, proposals are free to choose the platform to put under stress
> test. An important criteria for the success of the proposals from the
> point of view of the funding bodies, however, will be the
> appropriateness of the platform chosen as the target platform in each
> proposal.

> With the above understanding, Reiner Wichert talked to funding bodies
> and argumented that alone the existence of universAAL shows that it is
> justifiable to invest efforts to define a funding scheme for porting
> projects. In consultancy with eInclusion and the universAAL consortium,
> universAAL has been mentioned in the announcement text as one possible
> target platform just to make sure that there will be at least one
> appropriate platform volunteer. But in practice, until now we have
> received two other official registrations that nominate a platform,
> namely "OSAmI-Commons" and "AAS-Platform", and two other that have
> contacted us by email and are arranging for nomination of a platform,
> namely "openURC" and "Hydra/LinkSmart". This is even more than the
> number of the slots we had reserved for candidate platforms in the
> workshop and hence we have to include only a subset of them in the 45
> minutes slot. However, this does not mean that only those platforms
> presented in the workshop can be taken as target platform in the future
> proposals. In a very short presentation, the organizers will list all of
> the nominations and explain that there is no intention from the side of
> the organizers to "push" the platforms included in the program or to
> "boycott" the non-included ones. More importantly, the workshop is not
> about the selection of any platform but must discuss the feasibility of
> the idea from different perspectives:

> - are there any owners of products and services that would participate
> such projects? what would be the benefits for them?
> - do these projects really help to make one step towards achieving
> market breakthrough? which concrete obstacles can be cleared by them?
> (this is why we ask companies to become volunteer for short
> presentations on market obstacles)
> - what do these projects mean for the candidate platforms in terms of
> additional resources needed to provide support to porting projects?
> - do the funding bodies see a solution for possible funding? under which
> programs or calls?
> - can the workshop at the end agree on a specific recommendation that
> can be followed up by the funding bodies?

> The presentation of a small set of platforms should only help that
> companies owning (prototypes of) AAL products and services answer the
> first question positively.

> Kind regards,

> -- Saied