Grid infrastructures coupled with semantic web linkage and reasoning open up intriguing new possibilities for scientific collaboration. In this short paper, we outline the research agenda and collaboration technologies under development within the CoAKTinG project: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the Grid. CoAKTinG will provide tools to assist scientific collaboration by integrating intelligent meeting spaces, ontologically annotated media streams from online meetings, decision rationale and group memory capture, meeting facilitation, issue handling, planning and coordination support, constraint satisfaction, and instant messaging/presence. Their integration is illustrated through an extended use scenario

Buckingham Shum, Simon

De Roure, David

Eisenstadt, Marc

Shadbolt, Nigel

Tate, Austin

English

Open Research Online

Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputsCoAKTinG: Collaborative Advanced KnowledgeTechnologies in the GridConference or Workshop ItemHow to cite:Buckingham Shum, Simon; De Roure, David; Eisenstadt, Marc; Shadbolt, Nigel and Tate, Austin (2002).CoAKTinG: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the Grid. In: Second Workshop on AdvancedCollaborative Environments, Eleventh IEEE Int. Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC 11),24-26 Jul 2002, Edinburgh, Scotland.For guidance on citations see FAQs.c© 2002 The University of EdinburghVersion: Accepted ManuscriptCopyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.oro.open.ac.uk1Proc. Second Workshop on Advanced Collaborative Environments [www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/fl/wace/summer2002/index-wace2002.htm]Eleventh IEEE Int. Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC-11), July 24-26, 2002, EdinburghCoAKTinG: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the GridSimon Buckingham Shum† David De Roure†† Marc Eisenstadt† Nigel Shadbolt†† Austin Tate*†Knowledge Media InstituteOpen UniversityMilton KeynesMK7 6AA, UKsbs@acm.orgm.eisenstadt@open.ac.uk††Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia GroupUniversity of SouthamptonHighfieldSouthampton SO17 1BJ, UKdder@ecs.soton.ac.uknrs@ecs.soton.ac.uk*Artificial IntelligenceApplications InstituteUniversity of Edinburgh80 South BridgeEdinburgh EH1 1HN, UKa.tate@ed.ac.ukAbstractGrid infrastructures coupled with semantic web linkage and reasoning open up intriguing new possibilities forscientific collaboration. In this short paper, we outline the research agenda and collaboration technologies underdevelopment within the CoAKTinG project: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the Grid.CoAKTinG will provide tools to assist scientific collaboration by integrating intelligent meeting spaces,ontologically annotated media streams from online meetings, decision rationale and group memory capture, meetingfacilitation, issue handling, planning and coordination support, constraint satisfaction, and instantmessaging/presence. Their integration is illustrated through an extended use scenario.1 IntroductionThe Advanced Knowledge Technologies Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration [AKT IRC: www.aktors.org] is a 6year, $10M project to develop knowledge management technologies, funded by the UK’s Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC). The related CoAKTinG project [www.aktors.org/coakting], funded as part of theUK’s e-Science Initiative on Grid computing, aims to integrate and adapt AKT and related technologies specificallyto support distributed scientific collaboration. As part of the AKT project’s conception of the convergence ofknowledge technologies and grid computing as the Semantic Grid [www.SemanticGrid.org], CoAKTinG will providetools to assist scientific collaboration by integrating intelligent meeting spaces, ontologically annotated mediastreams from online meetings, decision rationale and group memory capture, meeting facilitation, issue handling,planning and coordination support, constraint satisfaction, and instant messaging/presence. These approaches aresummarised below.Smart spaces. Scientists may wish to be in a variety of places when they are in communication with remotecolleagues: experimental labs, meeting rooms, data analysis suites, or travelling. This component of the project willbe combining Access Grid node spaces [www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/fl/accessgrid/ag-spaces.htm] with portable smart devices thatsupport a variety of broad and narrow bandwidth connections to other people/devices. A smart space, as we conceiveit, will recognise significant events in a meeting and insert metadata into the AV stream, described next.Ontologically annotated audio/video streams. Few researchers have the time to sit and watch videos of meetings;an AV record of an online meeting is thus only as useful as its indexing. Moreover, indexing effort must negotiatethe cost/benefit tradeoff or it will not be done. Our prior work has developed ways to embed ‘continuous metadata’(of which one form is hyperlinks) in media streams [3]. We will now be embedding metadata grounded in one ormore ontologies for scientific collaboration. Additionally, decisions and key discussions (as captured inCompendium – see below) can be recovered.Issue handling, tasking, planning and coordination. We will be building applications using I-X Intelligent ProcessPanels [2, 6] and their underlying <I-N-CA> (Issues, Nodes, Critical and Auxiliary) constraint-based ontology forprocesses and products [6] [i-x.info]. The process panels provide a simple interface that acts as an intelligent “to do”2list that is based on the handling of issues, the performance of activity or the addition of constraints. It also supportssemantically task directed “augmented” messaging and reporting between panel users. A common ontology ofprocesses and process or collaboration products based on constraints on the collaborative activity or on thealternative products being created via the collaboration is the heart of this research. We envisage the creation of alibrary of process models to support the issues, options and constraints associated with common types of meetingheld by a given scientific group.Collective sensemaking and group memory capture. Whilst meetings are a pervasive knowledge-based activity inscientific life, they are also one of the hardest to do well. “Meeting technologies” tend either to over-structuremeetings (e.g. Group Decision Support Systems), or ignore process altogether, and simply digitize physical media(e.g. whiteboards) for capturing the products of discussion. The Compendium approach [www.CompendiumInstitute.org]occupies the hybrid middle-ground – ‘lightweight’ discussion structuring and mediation plus idea capture [5], withimport and export to other document types. “Dialogue maps” [CogNexus.org] are created on the fly in meetingsproviding a visual trace of issues, ideas, arguments and decisions.Enhanced presence management and visualisation. The concept of presence has moved beyond the‘online/offline/away/busy/do-not-disturb’ set of simple state indicators towards a rich blend of attributes that can beused to characterise an individual's physical and/or spatial location, work trajectory, time frame of reference, mentalmood, goals, and intentions. Our challenge is how best to characterise presence, how to make it easy to manage andeasy to visualise, and how to remain consistent with the user's own expectations, work habits, and existing patternsof Instant Messaging (IM) and other communication tool usage. Working with the Jabber open source XML-basedcommunications architecture, we will be extending its IM capabilities with ‘ontology of presence’ and ‘knowledgeprofiles’. A prototype called BuddySpace [1] [kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/buddyspace] also adds visual and map-based ‘buddylists’ to display presence information that is mapped onto visualisations, both geographical (e.g. a map of a building,or a region), and conceptual (e.g. a workflow chart or project plan, a design or experiment). The scale of the map canbe altered to reflect anything from global positioning, to school and workplace office layouts, to experimentalassemblies. Moreover, not only people have presence states: devices, documents, and indeed any arbitrary resourcecan have a presence state indicated on our ‘desktop radar’ display.2 Use ScenarioWe now present an extended scenario to illustrate how these tools could be usefully combined to support scientificcollaboration. This is one of a series of use scenarios that we are using to drive the integration work. Each of thetools introduced above, and appearing in the scenario, is an implemented system. However, their integration asdescribed in the scenario is fictitious, and some of the user interfaces have been visually augmented to reflect howwe envisage user interaction.A research team is holding a meeting over the internet to discuss the results of a recent series ofexperiments. Three of the team (Anna, Ben and Clive) are present via high bandwidth Access Gridmeeting rooms that their institutions have, providing multi-screen video channels and high quality audioto the CollabClients on their laptops. Daisy’s university hasn’t yet installed an Access Grid room, so sheis joining them via a desktop CollabClient in her office. Elli cannot make the meeting, as she is on theroad to a conference.Ben has displayed the agenda on his process panel, and also as a visual Compendium map of openissues, ready to capture their discussion as it unfolds (Figure 1).3Figure 1: Compendium dialogue map setting the agenda, ready to capture discussionAnna shows a graph from the last experiment and they discuss this, scribbling a few notes on it. Theydiscuss the three options facing them for the next experimental run, using Ben’s dialogue map to trackthe pros and cons for each option. One issue re-opens a discussion that they started two months earlier ata workshop. Ben opens up the map for this discussion so they can remind themselves what they coveredlast time. Several of the ideas generated in that discussion were contributed by Felix, who has moved toanother project now. However, on mousing over an Idea icon referencing him (Figure 2), they can seethat he’s online, but not video-enabled, so they open up a text chat window (Figure 3).Figure 2: Revisiting the  map from a “Sat3” discussion two months earlier:mousing over a contribution from Felix indicates his current availability online.4Figure 3: The meeting opens the recommended communication channel (textchat) to FelixFelix provides some helpful commentary, and then refers them to Elli, who has flagged her own high-priority interest in (and capabilities related to) this topic, as an earlier contributor to supportingarguments.Although she’s on the road right now, Elli’s Presence Manager tool (Figure 4) knows that high-priorityalerts on subjects that she has flagged as important can be re-routed automatically to her mobile phone asa plain text message alert, so such an alert is sent to Elli’s phone.Figure 4: Elli’s Presence Manager, giving her control over how she wants to be alertedto different kinds of messages.Ben marks their agreement on other actions, and from this generates a ‘To Do’ list. On each of theirlaptops, a small panel appears listing action items, showing each item’s status, waiting to be checked as“Done” (Figure 5).  Some actions begin to be dealt with via intelligent agents authorised to perform theseautonomously.5Figure 5: Ben’s Process Panel: as issues and action items are agreed in the meeting and captured in thedialogue map, items appear on his active ‘To Do’ list.Two hours later when she’s checked in at her conference hotel, Elli, already aware of a high-priorityquery because of her text message alert, boots her laptop and on her desktop sees at a glance that theteam are all “Away”, and that a project bid still needs one more signature. But flashing in red is aQuestion icon from Compendium: What syntax does the Sat3 require?  (Figure 6).6Figure 6: Elli’s presence list indicates the state of key people, devices, and documents, and flashing inred, an open issue on which the team needs her input.Mousing over it, she sees this is both an issue relevant to her own high-priority interest and from thedatestamp, an issue on which the team needed her input that afternoon. She double-clicks on it to launchher CollabClient (Figure 7). It displays Clive presenting his slide and the state of the Compendiumdialogue map at the time. She replays the key minute of discussion between Anna and Clive when theyneeded her input. She sees the messaging window appear as they connect to Felix, and sees his referenceto consult her.7Figure 7: Elli replays the key segment from the meeting that she missed.She brings the dialogue map to the front, records an audio annotation, and places it as an answer to theopen question on the map.Her To Do panel is automatically synchronised as she does this. She briefly scans it, noting with a groanthe new items that have appeared, then leaves her agent to do what it is authorised to act upon while shegoes to bed.  She will see what it has left her that needs her attention in the morning.The above scenario is generated from considering feasible integrations (within the next two years) between thetechnologies summarised at the start. Compendium’s dialogue maps can show the presence status managed by Jabberof people, documents, and other artifacts. Issues, action items and constraints resulting from discussions can lead toI-X Process Panel entries and its planning and execution aids can semi-autonomously handle some of these. Nodeson dialogue maps can be made into active objects indicating status on desktops. Audio/video can be arbitrarilyreplayed with significant events (such as relevant application events) embedded as metadata in the media stream.Devices and the software tools that utilise them to communicate with the various users know their limitations, and sodo the best they can when someone tries to contact or use them.3 AcknowledgementsThis work is supported partially under the Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) Interdisciplinary ResearchCollaboration (IRC), which is sponsored by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council undergrant number GR/N15764/01. The AKT IRC comprises the Universities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Sheffield,Southampton and the Open University. The I-X project is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA) under grant number F30602-99-1-0024.The authors’ employers and research sponsors are authorised to reproduce and distribute reprints and on-line copiesfor their purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon. The views and conclusions contained herein arethose of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing official policies or endorsements, eitherexpress or implied, of other parties.84 References [1] Eisenstadt, M, (2002). From Buddy Lists to Buddy Space: Scaleable Experiences of InterPersonal Presence.Proceedings of the Presence and Interworking Mobility Summit (PIM2002), June 11-13, 2002, Helsinki, Finland.[www.pulver.com/pim][2] Levine, J., Tate, A. and Dalton, J. (2000). O-P3: Supporting the Planning Process using Open Planning ProcessPanels. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 15, No. 6, November/December 2000.[3] De Roure, D.C., Moreau, L. and Hall, W. (2002). HyStream - Applying Open Hypermedia to MultimediaStreams. Individual Grant Review Report, EPSRC GR/M84077/01  [www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dder/hystream/hystream-report.htm][4] Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Zimmermann, B., Palus , C., Drath, W., Horth, D.,Domingue, J., Motta, E. and Li, G. (2001).  Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events. KnowledgeTechnologies 2001, March 4-7, 2001, Austin TX. This and other case studies at:  [www.CompendiumInstitute.org][5] Tate, A. (1996). The <I-N-OVA> Constraint Model of Plans, Proceedings of the Third International Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, (ed. B.Drabble),  pp.221-228, Edinburgh, UK, May 1996, AAAI Press.[6] Tate, A., Levine, J., Dalton, J. and Nixon, A. (2002). Task Achieving Agents on the World Wide Web, InCreating the Semantic Web, Fensel, D., Hendler, J.,  Liebermann, H. and Wahlster, W.  (eds.), 2002, MIT Press.

CoAKTinG: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the Grid

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

1Proc. Second Workshop on Advanced Collaborative Environments [www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/fl/wace/summer2002/index-wace2002.htm]Eleventh IEEE Int. Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC-11), July 24-26, 2002, EdinburghCoAKTinG: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the GridSimon Buckingham Shum† David De Roure†† Marc Eisenstadt† Nigel Shadbolt†† Austin Tate*†Knowledge Media InstituteOpen UniversityMilton KeynesMK7 6AA, UKsbs@acm.orgm.eisenstadt@open.ac.uk††Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia GroupUniversity of SouthamptonHighfieldSouthampton SO17 1BJ, UKdder@ecs.soton.ac.uknrs@ecs.soton.ac.uk*Artificial IntelligenceApplications InstituteUniversity of Edinburgh80 South BridgeEdinburgh EH1 1HN, UKa.tate@ed.ac.ukAbstractGrid infrastructures coupled with semantic web linkage and reasoning open up intriguing new possibilities forscientific collaboration. In this short paper, we outline the research agenda and collaboration technologies underdevelopment  within  the  CoAKTinG  project:  Collaborative  Advanced  Knowledge  Technologies  in  the  Grid.CoAKTinG  will  provide  tools  to  assist  scientific  collaboration  by  integrating  intelligent  meeting  spaces,ontologically annotated media streams from online meetings, decision rationale and group memory capture, meetingfacilitation,  issue  handling,  planning  and  coordination  support,  constraint  satisfaction,  and  instantmessaging/presence. Their integration is illustrated through an extended use scenario.1  IntroductionThe Advanced Knowledge Technologies Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration [AKT IRC: www.aktors.org] is a 6year, $10M project to develop knowledge management technologies, funded by the UK’s Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council (EPSRC). The related CoAKTinG project [www.aktors.org/coakting], funded as part of theUK’s e-Science Initiative on Grid computing, aims to integrate and adapt AKT and related technologies specificallyto support distributed scientific collaboration. As part of the AKT project’s conception of the convergence ofknowledge technologies and grid computing as the Semantic Grid [www.SemanticGrid.org], CoAKTinG will providetools to assist scientific collaboration by integrating intelligent meeting spaces, ontologically annotated mediastreams from online meetings, decision rationale and group memory capture, meeting facilitation, issue handling,planning and coordination support, constraint satisfaction, and instant messaging/presence. These approaches aresummarised below.Smart spaces. Scientists may wish to be in a variety of places when they are in communication with remotecolleagues: experimental labs, meeting rooms, data analysis suites, or travelling. This component of the project willbe combining Access Grid node spaces [www-fp.mcs.anl.gov/fl/accessgrid/ag-spaces.htm] with portable smart devices thatsupport a variety of broad and narrow bandwidth connections to other people/devices. A smart space, as we conceiveit, will recognise significant events in a meeting and insert metadata into the AV stream, described next.Ontologically annotated audio/video streams. Few researchers have the time to sit and watch videos of meetings;an AV record of an online meeting is thus only as useful as its indexing. Moreover, indexing effort must negotiatethe cost/benefit tradeoff or it will not be done. Our prior work has developed ways to embed ‘continuous metadata’(of which one form is hyperlinks) in media streams [3]. We will now be embedding metadata grounded in one ormore  ontologies  for  scientific  collaboration.  Additionally,  decisions  and  key  discussions  (as  captured  inCompendium – see below) can be recovered.Issue handling, tasking, planning and coordination. We will be building applications using I-X Intelligent ProcessPanels [2, 6] and their underlying <I-N-CA> (Issues, Nodes, Critical and Auxiliary) constraint-based ontology forprocesses and products [6] [i-x.info]. The process panels provide a simple interface that acts as an intelligent “to do”2list that is based on the handling of issues, the performance of activity or the addition of constraints. It also supportssemantically task directed “augmented” messaging and reporting between panel users. A common ontology ofprocesses and process or collaboration products based on constraints on the collaborative activity or on thealternative products being created via the collaboration is the heart of this research. We envisage the creation of alibrary of process models to support the issues, options and constraints associated with common types of meetingheld by a given scientific group.Collective sensemaking and group memory capture. Whilst meetings are a pervasive knowledge-based activity inscientific life, they are also one of the hardest to do well. “Meeting technologies” tend either to over-structuremeetings (e.g. Group Decision Support Systems), or ignore process altogether, and simply digitize physical media(e.g. whiteboards) for capturing the products of discussion. The Compendium approach [www.CompendiumInstitute.org]occupies the hybrid middle-ground – ‘lightweight’ discussion structuring and mediation plus idea capture [5], withimport and export to other document types. “Dialogue maps” [CogNexus.org] are created on the fly in meetingsproviding a visual trace of issues, ideas, arguments and decisions.Enhanced  presence  management  and  visualisation.  The  concept  of  presence  has  moved  beyond  the‘online/offline/away/busy/do-not-disturb’ set of simple state indicators towards a rich blend of attributes that can beused to characterise an individual's physical and/or spatial location, work trajectory, time frame of reference, mentalmood, goals, and intentions. Our challenge is how best to characterise presence, how to make it easy to manage andeasy to visualise, and how to remain consistent with the user's own expectations, work habits, and existing patternsof Instant Messaging (IM) and other communication tool usage. Working with the Jabber open source XML-basedcommunications architecture, we will be extending its IM capabilities with ‘ontology of presence’ and ‘knowledgeprofiles’. A prototype called BuddySpace [1] [kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/buddyspace] also adds visual and map-based ‘buddylists’ to display presence information that is mapped onto visualisations, both geographical (e.g. a map of a building,or a region), and conceptual (e.g. a workflow chart or project plan, a design or experiment). The scale of the map canbe altered to reflect anything from global positioning, to school and workplace office layouts, to experimentalassemblies. Moreover, not only people have presence states: devices, documents, and indeed any arbitrary resourcecan have a presence state indicated on our ‘desktop radar’ display.2  Use ScenarioWe now present an extended scenario to illustrate how these tools could be usefully combined to support scientificcollaboration. This is one of a series of use scenarios that we are using to drive the integration work. Each of thetools introduced above, and appearing in the scenario, is an implemented system. However, their integration asdescribed in the scenario is fictitious, and some of the user interfaces have been visually augmented to reflect howwe envisage user interaction.A research team is holding a meeting over the internet to discuss the results of a recent series ofexperiments. Three of the team (Anna, Ben and Clive) are present via high bandwidth Access Gridmeeting rooms that their institutions have, providing multi-screen video channels and high quality audioto the CollabClients on their laptops. Daisy’s university hasn’t yet installed an Access Grid room, so sheis joining them via a desktop CollabClient in her office. Elli cannot make the meeting, as she is on theroad to a conference.Ben has displayed the agenda on his process panel, and also as a visual Compendium map of openissues, ready to capture their discussion as it unfolds (Figure 1).3Figure 1: Compendium dialogue map setting the agenda, ready to capture discussionAnna shows a graph from the last experiment and they discuss this, scribbling a few notes on it. Theydiscuss the three options facing them for the next experimental run, using Ben’s dialogue map to trackthe pros and cons for each option. One issue re-opens a discussion that they started two months earlier ata workshop. Ben opens up the map for this discussion so they can remind themselves what they coveredlast time. Several of the ideas generated in that discussion were contributed by Felix, who has moved toanother project now. However, on mousing over an Idea icon referencing him (Figure 2), they can seethat he’s online, but not video-enabled, so they open up a text chat window (Figure 3).Figure 2: Revisiting the  map from a “Sat3” discussion two months earlier:mousing over a contribution from Felix indicates his current availability online.4Figure 3: The meeting opens the recommended communication channel (textchat) to FelixFelix provides some helpful commentary, and then refers them to Elli, who has flagged her own high-priority  interest  in  (and  capabilities  related  to)  this  topic,  as  an  earlier  contributor  to  supportingarguments.Although she’s on the road right now, Elli’s Presence Manager tool (Figure 4) knows that high-priorityalerts on subjects that she has flagged as important can be re-routed automatically to her mobile phone asa plain text message alert, so such an alert is sent to Elli’s phone.Figure 4: Elli’s Presence Manager, giving her control over how she wants to be alertedto different kinds of messages.Ben marks their agreement on other actions, and from this generates a ‘To Do’ list. On each of theirlaptops, a small panel appears listing action items, showing each item’s status, waiting to be checked as“Done” (Figure 5).  Some actions begin to be dealt with via intelligent agents authorised to perform theseautonomously.5Figure 5: Ben’s Process Panel: as issues and action items are agreed in the meeting and captured in thedialogue map, items appear on his active ‘To Do’ list.Two hours later when she’s checked in at her conference hotel, Elli, already aware of a high-priorityquery because of her text message alert, boots her laptop and on her desktop sees at a glance that theteam are all “Away”, and that a project bid still needs one more signature. But flashing in red is aQuestion icon from Compendium: What syntax does the Sat3 require?  (Figure 6).6Figure 6: Elli’s presence list indicates the state of key people, devices, and documents, and flashing inred, an open issue on which the team needs her input.Mousing over it, she sees this is both an issue relevant to her own high-priority interest and from thedatestamp, an issue on which the team needed her input that afternoon. She double-clicks on it to launchher CollabClient (Figure 7). It displays Clive presenting his slide and the state of the Compendiumdialogue map at the time. She replays the key minute of discussion between Anna and Clive when theyneeded her input. She sees the messaging window appear as they connect to Felix, and sees his referenceto consult her.7Figure 7: Elli replays the key segment from the meeting that she missed.She brings the dialogue map to the front, records an audio annotation, and places it as an answer to theopen question on the map.Her To Do panel is automatically synchronised as she does this. She briefly scans it, noting with a groanthe new items that have appeared, then leaves her agent to do what it is authorised to act upon while shegoes to bed.  She will see what it has left her that needs her attention in the morning.The above scenario is generated from considering feasible integrations (within the next two years) between thetechnologies summarised at the start. Compendium’s dialogue maps can show the presence status managed by Jabberof people, documents, and other artifacts. Issues, action items and constraints resulting from discussions can lead toI-X Process Panel entries and its planning and execution aids can semi-autonomously handle some of these. Nodeson dialogue maps can be made into active objects indicating status on desktops. Audio/video can be arbitrarilyreplayed with significant events (such as relevant application events) embedded as metadata in the media stream.Devices and the software tools that utilise them to communicate with the various users know their limitations, and sodo the best they can when someone tries to contact or use them.3  AcknowledgementsThis work is supported partially under the Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) Interdisciplinary ResearchCollaboration (IRC), which is sponsored by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council undergrant  number  GR/N15764/01.  The  AKT  IRC  comprises  the  Universities  of  Aberdeen,  Edinburgh,  Sheffield,Southampton and the Open University. The I-X project is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA) under grant number F30602-99-1-0024.The authors’ employers and research sponsors are authorised to reproduce and distribute reprints and on-line copiesfor their purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon. The views and conclusions contained herein arethose of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing official policies or endorsements, eitherexpress or implied, of other parties.84 References [1] Eisenstadt, M, (2002). From Buddy Lists to Buddy Space: Scaleable Experiences of InterPersonal Presence.Proceedings of the Presence and Interworking Mobility Summit (PIM2002), June 11-13, 2002, Helsinki, Finland.[www.pulver.com/pim][2] Levine, J., Tate, A. and Dalton, J. (2000). O-P3: Supporting the Planning Process using Open Planning ProcessPanels. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 15, No. 6, November/December 2000.[3] De Roure, D.C., Moreau, L. and Hall, W. (2002). HyStream - Applying Open Hypermedia to MultimediaStreams. Individual Grant Review Report, EPSRC GR/M84077/01  [www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dder/hystream/hystream-report.htm][4] Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Zimmermann, B., Palus , C., Drath, W., Horth, D.,Domingue, J., Motta, E. and Li, G. (2001).  Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events. KnowledgeTechnologies 2001, March 4-7, 2001, Austin TX. This and other case studies at:  [www.CompendiumInstitute.org][5] Tate, A. (1996). The <I-N-OVA> Constraint Model of Plans, Proceedings of the Third International Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, (ed. B.Drabble),  pp.221-228, Edinburgh, UK, May 1996, AAAI Press.[6] Tate, A., Levine, J., Dalton, J. and Nixon, A. (2002). Task Achieving Agents on the World Wide Web, InCreating the Semantic Web, Fensel, D., Hendler, J.,  Liebermann, H. and Wahlster, W.  (eds.), 2002, MIT Press.

Austin TX. This and other case studies at: [www.CompendiumInstitute.org]

From Buddy Lists to Buddy Space: Scaleable Experiences of InterPersonal Presence.

HyStream - Applying Open Hypermedia to Multimedia Streams. Individual Grant Review Report, EPSRC

O-P 3: Supporting the Planning Process using Open Planning Process Panels.

Task Achieving Agents on the World Wide Web,

The Constraint Model of Plans,

http://oro.open.ac.uk/28676/1/CoAKTinG-WACE2002.pdf

CoAKTinG: Collaborative Advanced Knowledge Technologies in the Grid

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Research Online

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)