Difference between revisions of "MLQA 2009"
Latest revision as of 10:01, 15 July 2010
The Kick-Off meeting of the proposed ERCIM working group on Models and Logics for Quantitative Analysis (abbreviated MLQA) took place on Saturday 28’th of March in conjunction with ETAPS 2009 in York.
Programe of the meeting
- 10.10-10.30: Opening
- Flemming Nielson: “An overview of MLQA”
- 11.00-12.30: Invited Talks:
- Stephen Gilmore - stochastic analysis in PEPA
- Carolyn Talcott - statistical model checking in Maude
- Rocco De Nicola - process algebras for stochastic features
- 14.00-15.30: Invited Talks:
- Diego Latella - applications to service oriented systems: “A Stochastic Logic for Mobility and Global Computing”
- Holger Hermanns - applications to embedded systems
- Paola Quaglia - applications to biological systems
- 16.00-17.00: Short Presentations (“4 minutes, 1 slide”):
- Tino Teige (University of Oldenburg).
- Herbert Wiklicky (Imperial College).
- Vashti Galpin (University of Edinburgh).
- Manuela Bujorianu (Cicada).
- Stefan Kiefer (TU Munich).
- Erik de Vink (CWI and TU/e).
- Milad Niqui (CWI).
- Ezio Bartocci (Universita Camerino).
- Henrikas Pranevicius (Kaunas University of Technology).
- Sven Schneider (TU Berlin).
- Mark Timmer (University of Twente).
- Uli Fahrenberg (University of Aalborg).
- 17.10-18.00: Discussion
|Ezio Bartocci||UNICAM, Camerino, Italy|
|Manuela Bujorianu||University of Manchester, UK|
|Gabriel Ciobanu||Romanian Academy,Iasi, Romania|
|Vincent Danos||University of Edinburgh, Informatics|
|Rocco de Nicola||Universita di Firenze, Italy|
|Erik de Vink||TU Eindhoven and CWI|
|Uli Fahrenberg||Aalborg University, Computer Science|
|Vashti Galpin||University of Edinburgh, Informatics|
|Stephen Gilmore||University of Edinburgh, Informatics|
|Matthew Hennessy||Trinity College Dublin, Computer Science|
|Holger Hermanns||Saarland University|
|Jane Hillston||University of Edinburgh, Informatics|
|Joost-Pieter Katoen||RWTH Aachen and University of Twente|
|Stefan Kiefer||TU Munich, Informatics|
|Richard Lassaigne||University Paris 7|
|Diego Latella||CNR, ISTI|
|Michele Loreti||Universita di Firenze, Italy|
|Emanuela Merelli||UNICAM, Camerino, Italy|
|Flemming Nielson||DTU Informatics|
|Hanne Riis Nielson||DTU Informatics|
|David Parker||Oxford University|
|Nenrikas Pranevicius||Kaunas University|
|Paola Quaglia||Trento University, Italy|
|Vladimiro Sassone||University of Southampton|
|Sven Schneider||Technical University Berlin|
|Nataliya Skrypnyuk||DTU Informatics|
|Carolyn Talcott||SRI International, USA|
|Tino Teige||Oldenburg University|
|Mark Timmer||University of Twente, Netherlands|
|Herbert Wiklicky||Imperial College, London|
|Ender Yuksel||DTU Informatics|
The discussion fully supported actually creating the working group.
Concerning the mission statement it was suggested that the logic component be stressed further, that we should make sure to involve control theory and that we should be open to neighbouring areas like performance guarantees; the latter could be accomplished by inviting guest speakers to future meetings. It was also suggested that theorem proving be mentioned as a relevant technology. Concerning application areas it was suggested that life sciences (applications to biology) should be worked better into the document and that the security component should be strengthened.
Concerning the duration of the meetings a two day meeting colocated with a relevant conference was favoured. It is not the intention ot create a meeting with accepted papers but rather to keep it an informal venue intended to create synergies. Some concrete suggestions were to colocate with QEST and FORMATS whereas ETAPS was felt to be a bit crowded (and there was the unfortunate scheduling of MLQA and QAPL on the same day) and ICALP and DiscoTec were found not to be too close in topic. Indeed QEST and FORMATS will be held in 2011 in Aachen and Joost-Pieter Katoen (present at the meeting) will be the organizer.
Concerning the contents of the meeting it was suggested that an effort should be made to make the meetings “special”. Ideas could be to contrast “opposing” analysis techniques, to present and share case studies of a reasonable size that could be addressed using various techniques. In other words to actually avoid the risk of becoming yet another conference. Once the board of the working group is in place it would be the duty of the board to make this kind of planning.