MOUMIR Network Meeting March 1112 2003 Introduce new

MOUMIR Network Meeting March 11/12 2003 • Introduce new people • Confirm minutes from last meeting • Matters Arising: Partner Actions, Deliverables, WP Progress • ACK Report – Abandoned International Workshop – Current budget situation. BGU, 2 xguest speaker travel claims for this workshop will be dealt with by BAL – The Final Report – No news on In. Ri. Co • Partner Reports • Final Report compilation • AOB

Matters Arising • Mainly from Action points at last meeting. Can we identify outstanding actions quickly? • Will do this as part of partner 20 mins spiels: first thing to say is responses to actions

Matters Arising: ACK • 2002/03 cost statement and scientific report finally completed • Our project officer requested changes to the PM deliverable table as she spotted that Cian was wrongly classified as postdoc sometime in the project. • New budget reallocation undertaken and was agreed amongst the partners. . Eventually … this took between June-November 2003. More in a moment. • Only in Feb 2004 were all the written agreements from each partner collected and sent to commission. • Commission refused our formal request for Tobago international workshop. I was told that organisation of a workshop is not within the remit of an RTN. • International MOUMIR workshop transformed into normal “workshop=meeting” in London. . I. e. now

The Final Budget Reallocation • This took a long time to sort out because of a rule in the contract that says transfers between partners greater than 20% of their budget require the permission of the EU. • By the time our project officer was able to look at the information, it was too late to ask for this permission. And there is some ambuguity in the contract [regarding wether the limit is on transfers “between” or “from” or “to”] hence I had to re-do the budget reallocation • By now, you should have all received a package from me giving a copy of the final budget agreed, as well as a copy of the letter I sent to the commission saying what we did and a copy of all the letters of agreement. • If you have not received this, say so now.

The agreed budget (Euros) Partner TCD INRIA BGU AUTH UCAM INESC RTP BAL PM Pers. Netwk Ohd Total 118. 5 223421 41879 53060 318630 66 189101 48900 47600. 2 285601. 2 38 97499 75000 34499. 8 206998. 8 98. 3 138388 44112 36500 219000 63 176846 24754 40320 241920 56 98941 15839 22956 137736 26 39720 18000 11544 69264 0 0 17600 3520 21120 465. 8 96391. 7 286084 250000 1, 500, 000

The agreed budget (PM) Partner TCD INRIA BGU AUTH UCAM INESC RTP BAL Total Pre-Doc 78 41 16 72. 25 30 56 26 0 319. 25 Post-Doc 40. 5 25 22 26. 05 33 0 0 0 146. 55 Total 118. 5 66 38 98. 3 63 56 26 0 465. 8

Will we meet these targets? Partner TCD INRIA BGU AUTH UCAM INESC RTP BAL Total Pre-Doc 78 41 16 72. 25 30 56 26 0 319. 25 Post-Doc 40. 5 25 22 26. 05 33 0 0 0 146. 55 Total 118. 5 66 38 98. 3 63 56 26 0 465. 8 Need to report On this in the Final report I have been told I have to justify again why we undertook the changes we did

Why is this important? • The PM deliverable is the most important as far as the EU is concerned • In the first contract we had to deliver 429 PM • We then rebudgeted and converted PM from post to pre and shifted funds around when Ginus was PO and we had to deliver 475 PM • Then we shifted again after Ginus had left. . And found that we now had to deliver 465 PM. . Mostly made up of a change at AUTH (costing 8 PM) and moving PM around which does not cost the same in different institutions. • In the final report, it appears I have to justify all of this. I will collate the letters sent to Ginus in 2002 with the ones sent to Maria G. in 2003 and trust that information will be good enough.

MM deliverable: State as of last year March 2003 Target Delivered so Far Partner Pre. Doc Post Total Pre Post Total TCD 74 40. 5 118. 5 58. 25 26. 88 85. 13 INRIA 41 25 66 32 12. 5 44. 5 BGU 16 22 38 0 8 8 AUTH 72. 25 26. 05 98. 3 41. 25 12. 11 53. 36 UCAM 30 33 63 36 11. 55 47. 55 INESC 56 0 56 25. 93 0 25. 93 RTP 26 0 26 14 0 14 BAL 0 0 0 Total 319. 25 146. 55 465. 8 207. 43 71. 04 278. 47

MM deliverable: State as of end March 2004? Target Delivered so Far Partner Pre. Doc Post Total TCD 74 40. 5 118. 5 INRIA 41 25 66 BGU 16 22 38 AUTH 72. 25 26. 05 98. 3 UCAM 30 33 63 INESC 56 0 56 RTP 26 0 26 BAL 0 0 0 Total 319. 25 146. 55 465. 8 Pre Post Total

Deliverables etc • Working from new TA • All Dx. 3 now due …. • To be clear • The commission needs I) Final Cost statements ii) Final scientific report and iii) deliverables as a check • The Dx. 3 etc are all in iii) and due to our TA • They are SEPARATE from the final report which is in a form as laid out by the commission and which I sent to you a couple of weeks ago.

The final report • Final Moumir report due to commission by April 2004. • DO NOT BE LATE WITH THE COST STATEMENTS • A bigger scientific periodic report … but mostly still summary stuff • Last time I said “I hope we have more joint pubs than we have so far …” I wonder if that is the case now? • Pis HAVE TO FILL IN A QUESTIONAIRE: I sent this around. It would be good if you all give to me before the end of the next day. • Fast glance at some stuff now. . Then more at the end after information collated from partners.

The final report Part A – Research results Ø A. 1 Scientific Highlights: CONTEXT, EVALUATION, MULTIMODAL? (place after A. 1 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) Describe (in no more than five pages), the main scientific highlights of the network. Indicate, referring to Annex I of the contract, to which Objectives and/or Tasks and/or Milestone(s) these highlights relate. Indicate also the network teams which contributed to these highlights and provide relevant publication references. Ø A. 2 Joint Publications and Patents (place after A. 2 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) List the five most significant joint publications which are considered to have had a high impact and provide copies of these. Indicate to which Objective(s) and/or Task(s) and/or Milestone(s) these relate to and also which network teams are involved. Indicate (using bold type for example) whenever one of the network’s young researchers is named as an author. If any patents have arisen from the joint activities of the network, list these also and detail whether these will be developed further. What is high impact? Send me copies of ALL joint pubs … All our moumir pubs should be on the site …. It’ll make life easier In the future e. g audits etc.

The final report Part B - Comparison with the Joint Programme of Work (Annex I of the contract) (5 pages should be sufficient) Ø B. 1 Research achievements (place after B. 3 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) Give an assessment of the research work actually carried out and the scientific results achieved in the course of the contract in comparison with the following aspects of the Joint Programme of Work: Ø B. 2 Overall Organisation and management (place after B. 4 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) Give an overall assessment of the networking activities which took place in the course of the contract. How did these contribute to the success of the network in terms of the joint research activities, including transfer of knowledge, of increased mobility and of the training programme? Give an assessment of the benefits that working together at a Community level has brought to the Participants and to the networks’ area of research.

The final report Ø B. 4 Industry connections Give a description of the interactions with industry, if relevant, with an indication of how the Participants intend to exploit or commercialise the results of the network. AT LEAST CANON ARE STILL WITH US EH? Ø B. 5 Recommendations Comment on how the Research Training Networks activity could be enhanced, including from a contractual implementation point-of-view. As part of this, the Co-ordinator and scientists-in -charge are requested to complete the questionnaire given in Annex C which is designed to give the Commission some feedback on the overall impact of the network’s activity.

The final report Ø B. 3 Training Overview (place after B. 5 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) How were the young researchers recruited? Were any difficulties encountered in filling the posts available? If so, what were these and how were they addressed? Was there a change in the balance of Pre-Docs and Post Docs recruited as compared to Annex I of the contract? How did this affect the project? Using the format given in B. 5. 3 to B. 5. 7 inclusive of Section 3. 1, give an overall assessment of the contribution made by the network to the training and increased mobility of young researchers. Explain how the training programme was achieved in comparison with that described in the Joint Programme of Work. Provide information on where young researchers went to after their appointment in the network. Were their network appointments considered beneficial to their future career prospects? Need to send me information on where your network fellows have gone…

Brief statement of actions/progress by partner • State actions in last 9 months including information on • New researchers hired, problems persist? • Collaboration with other network members (+ relevant papers submitted to conferences/journals if any) • Contribution to workpackages • TCD [SW AK], INRIA [IJ], BGU [YF, AC], AUTH [IP], UCAM [NGK, SJG], INESC [LT], RTP [JS], BAL [SP] • Still Image: IJ [WP 2/5]; • Video: AUTH ( WP 2 Video Segmentation/ WP 4 Video Representation) • Audio: Arnon ( WP 2 Signal Separation/Audio) • Database Interface: Luis (WP 8) • (WP 3) Industry Panel (ACK), Mixed Media Analysis (WP 7 TCD) • WP 2/9 (Dissemination): web site fine. Joint papers please?

TCD Brief report • Audio work more mature: Marco publication in ACM Mulitmedia • Semantic retrieval work from Niall Rea/Rozenn Dahyot • Ongoing work on Video from Observation Sessions. Laurent Joyeux working on this in collaboration with E. Doyle • UWI collaboration continues. Have introduced it into In. Ri. Co. • Rozenn made contribs to Mario’s D 2. 2, D 4. x and completed D 7. 2 • ACK did all this budget stuff again and the useless workshop stuff and is now posied to do it all again for the final reports

Final session • Check through my understanding of your contribs to final report • . . Joint papers + PM consumed • Determine actions. . • Collect YR reports and PI questionairres now? • See final report stuff again. . In next slides

The final report Part A – Research results Ø A. 1 Scientific Highlights: CONTEXT, EVALUATION, MULTIMODAL? (place after A. 1 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) Describe (in no more than five pages), the main scientific highlights of the network. Indicate, referring to Annex I of the contract, to which Objectives and/or Tasks and/or Milestone(s) these highlights relate. Indicate also the network teams which contributed to these highlights and provide relevant publication references. Ø A. 2 Joint Publications and Patents (place after A. 2 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) List the five most significant joint publications which are considered to have had a high impact and provide copies of these. Indicate to which Objective(s) and/or Task(s) and/or Milestone(s) these relate to and also which network teams are involved. Indicate (using bold type for example) whenever one of the network’s young researchers is named as an author. If any patents have arisen from the joint activities of the network, list these also and detail whether these will be developed further. What is high impact? Send me copies of ALL joint pubs … All our moumir pubs should be on the site …. It’ll make life easier In the future e. g audits etc.

The final report Part B - Comparison with the Joint Programme of Work (Annex I of the contract) (5 pages should be sufficient) Ø B. 1 Research achievements (place after B. 3 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) Give an assessment of the research work actually carried out and the scientific results achieved in the course of the contract in comparison with the following aspects of the Joint Programme of Work: Ø B. 2 Overall Organisation and management (place after B. 4 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) Give an overall assessment of the networking activities which took place in the course of the contract. How did these contribute to the success of the network in terms of the joint research activities, including transfer of knowledge, of increased mobility and of the training programme? Give an assessment of the benefits that working together at a Community level has brought to the Participants and to the networks’ area of research.

The final report Ø B. 4 Industry connections Give a description of the interactions with industry, if relevant, with an indication of how the Participants intend to exploit or commercialise the results of the network. AT LEAST CANON ARE STILL WITH US EH? Ø B. 5 Recommendations Comment on how the Research Training Networks activity could be enhanced, including from a contractual implementation point-of-view. As part of this, the Co-ordinator and scientists-in -charge are requested to complete the questionnaire given in Annex C which is designed to give the Commission some feedback on the overall impact of the network’s activity.

The final report Ø B. 3 Training Overview (place after B. 5 of Section 3. 1 if combined Final and last Periodic Progress Report) How were the young researchers recruited? Were any difficulties encountered in filling the posts available? If so, what were these and how were they addressed? Was there a change in the balance of Pre-Docs and Post Docs recruited as compared to Annex I of the contract? How did this affect the project? Using the format given in B. 5. 3 to B. 5. 7 inclusive of Section 3. 1, give an overall assessment of the contribution made by the network to the training and increased mobility of young researchers. Explain how the training programme was achieved in comparison with that described in the Joint Programme of Work. Provide information on where young researchers went to after their appointment in the network. Were their network appointments considered beneficial to their future career prospects? Need to send me information on where your network fellows have gone…

Web site information • www. moumir. org • Need to update publications to Rozenn! Note we now have a tech report section. • Send Rozenn all presentations you have done today • Need short bio from new people • Reminder: partners/mouming guest/spreadeagle

Reminders • If you want to travel outside EU, you need to apply via me. See form on web site. • BEFORE your researchers leave you must get them to fill in the “Young Researchers Report” which is also on web site • You can always charge conf registration to the grant • Note how project should be declared in papers (see. doc file) • Joao: is your contact ok? Joao: what is your current postal address and contact number? • Remember that we have to do the final project report now • Remember action points from this meeting!

AOB ANY OTHER BUSINESS STATE ACTIONS

Next meeting. . ummmm • Well, that’s the end of MOUMIR as far as meetings go • We will be working hard together to complete the documentation no doubt. • I suppose its really all over in April 2004 • I will keep moumir. org alive so it can be used as reference material by the network members