TOURBOT Project
Kick-off Meeting
Jan. 13-14, 2000
Mediterranean Studies Room, FORTH, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Minutes of the Meeting
Participants:
FORTH:Panos Trahanias
Stelios Orphanoudakis
Antonis Argyros
Dimitris Tsakiris
Pantelis Georgiadis
Lena Gaga
Eleftheria Tzamali
Eleftheria Tzova
FHW:George Giannoulis
Tasos Stamatakis
Elias Hatzis
UNIBONN:Armin Cremers
Dirk Schulz
THEON:Vassilis Savvaides
Costas Constantinides
MUSBON:-
BYZMUS:Andromachi Katselaki
UNIFR:Wolfram Burgard
Dirk Haehnel
EU-DGXIII:Jan Hoorens
Distribution:
TOURBOT e-mail list
Those present
Programme:
Thursday, Jan. 13, 2000
12:00 – 12:15Registration
12:15 – 12:30Welcome/Opening Remarks, Panos Trahanias
Panos Trahanias, Co-ordinator of TOURBOT and host of the meeting, opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. He referred briefly to the meeting participants, the 2-day agenda, some background information on TOURBOT and made a few general remarks on the project. He also showed a TOURBOT logo that has been prepared for the project web-site and closed with a wish for a successful project.
12:30 – 12:45Welcome from the Director of ICS-FORTH,
Stelios Orphanoudakis
Stelios Orphanoudakis, director of ICS-FORTH and head of the Computer Vision and Robotics Laboratory (CVRL – the lab of ICS-FORTH that participates in TOURBOT) welcomed the TOURBOT participants at ICS-FORTH and mentioned briefly some of the activities of ICS-FORTH that are relevant to TOURBOT. He referred to the prospects of projects, such as TOURBOT, that address remote access to information, mobile agents and telepresence issues.
12:45 – 13:00EU-TOURBOT, Jan Hoorens, TOURBOT Project Officer
Jan Hoorens, the TOURBOT project officer, introduced himself to the consortium and mentioned briefly the activities of DGXIII and particularly D2. He commented on the negotiations that took place in Fall 1999 in order to prepare the TOURBOT contract, and made technical and administrative remarks regarding the project. He stated explicitly the need for a smooth cooperation between the consortium and the EU office throughout the project lifecycle and gave some information on the required procedures, such as periodic progress reports, cost statements, etc.
13:00 – 14:30Lunch Break
14:30 – 15:30Consortium Profile
The partners of the consortium gave short presentations of organizations’ profiles. All speakers focused on the activities in their organizations that are particularly relevant to the goals of TOURBOT.
ICS-FORTH, Antonis Argyros
FHW, Tasos Stamatakis and Elias Hatzis
UNIBONN, Dirk Schulz
15:30 – 16:00Coffee Break
16:00 – 16:40Consortium Profile (cont’d)
THEON, Vassilis Savvaides
UNIFR, Wolfram Burgard
MUSBON, Peter Friess, the project head at MUSBON was not present at the meeting. Wolfram Burgard gave a short presentation of MUSBON on behalf of Peter.
BYZMUS, Andromachi Katselaki
16:40 – 17:10Report from the Co-ordinator, Panos Trahanias
Panos Trahanias reported on administrative and technical issues regarding TOURBOT. Administrative issues:
Negotiations with EU successfully completed and contract signed Dec. 28, 1999.
Contract duration 24 months (01/01/2000 - 31/12/2001).
Budget 1,718,150 ECUs, EU contribution 1,088,790 ECUs, Advance Payment 326.637 ECUs (30% of EU contribution).
Progress reports and cost statements cover 6-month periods; first progress report and cost statement is due 30/06/00.
The TOURBOT Consortium Board (TCB):
consists of project heads at each site.
has the overall responsibility (administrative & technical) for running the project.
Should formulate a consortium agreement to govern the participants’ relationships throughout the project.
Consortium communication paths: The coordinator explicitly mentioned that communication among the partners at all levels is a prerequisite for a successful project. He advocated both “physical” communication (meetings) and e-communication. To facilitate e-comm, he reported that two (2) system aliases have already been set up, and are maintained by Panos Trahanias:
containing all project members; the project heads at each site are responsible for explicitly requesting additions and/or deletions from this alias. Currently, it contains the following list of e-mail addresses:
,
Action: All project heads to e-mail directly to Panos any additions/deletions in the above alias.
containing the e-mail addresses of TCB:
,
Meetings: A preliminary schedule of meetings has been presented which anticipates the following meetings:
Project month / 1 / 5 / 10 / 15 / 21 / 24Meeting Place / FORTH / UNIFR / FHW / BONN / THEON / BYZMUS
Meeting status / Proj. meeting – done / Proj. meeting - planned / Proj. meeting – planned / Proj. meeting - planned / Proj. meeting - planned / Workshop - planned
The consortium has agreed on this (preliminary) schedule. Moreover, it was decided that other (extra) meetings, perhaps involving a subset of the consortium, should be scheduled when needed.
Workpackage (WP) participation: Panos presented a table showing the man-month participation of the project sites in each WP. He requested that the leading sites for each WP assign a person who will assume the role of WP leader for the particular WP. It was agreed that the project site heads will communicate these names by e-mail.
Action: The names of the persons that will assume WP leadership should be e-mailed to Panos Trahanias.
Deadline: Friday, 21/01/00.
Technical Issues:
TOURBOT system: Panos presented a rather detailed (preliminary) architecture of the TOURBOT system and commented on the various modules of it.
Demonstration of concepts: the key concepts of TOURBOT, i.e. remote (over the internet) control of a robotic platform and user’s visualization of the imaged scene by the robot, have been demonstrated on-site using the workstation at the meeting room and an experimental set-up in the Computer Vision and Robotics Laboratory of ICS-FORTH.
END OF DAY 1
Friday, Jan. 14, 2000
09:30 – 11:00TOURBOT Consortium Board (TCB) Meeting
Panos Trahanias opened the TCB meeting and referred to the following issues:
Role of the TCB: the TCB is defined in Annex I of the contract (Project Programme) as the board that has the overall responsibility –administrative & technical- to run the project.
Contract - Related Documents: Panos informed the TCB about the contract signature and referred briefly to the related documents (general conditions, special conditions); copies of the contract and the related documents have already been forwarded to the TCB members.
Costs/Payments: Panos reported briefly on the eligible costs and payment (reimbursement) procedures.
Cost Statements/Reports: Panos informed the TCB members that the periodic progress reports and cost statements are due every six months; the cost statement form has already been forwarded to the TCB members.
Consortium agreement: Panos distributed to the TCB members a draft consortium agreement. In the discussion that followed, several articles were considered and agreed upon; moreover, a few changes were introduced. Since time did not permit all articles to be thoroughly discussed, it was agreed that comments would be received electronically.
Action: All TCB members and Jan Hoorens to send to Panos by e-mail comments/suggestions on the draft consortium agreement.
Deadline: Friday, Jan. 28, 2000.
After the deadline of Jan. 28, Panos will introduce all comments/suggestions in the consortium agreement; if there are multiple and possibly conflicting comments/suggestions, the new version of the consortium agreement will be circulated electronically to and a consensus will be reached in a few iterations. In the event of no comments/suggestions are received, the version of the consortium agreement that has been agreed upon during the TCB meeting will be taken as the final. The printed version of the final consortium agreement will be circulated for signing among the partners.
TOURBOT prospects / follow-up projects: Panos commented briefly on the open-end prospects of the TOURBOT project. He claimed that many other application areas may benefit from the results of TOURBOT and, therefore, follow-up projects can be envisaged.
Other business: No other issues were brought for discussion in the TCB meeting.
11:00 – 11:30Coffee Break
11:30 – 13:00Technical Issues
A detailed technical discussion on WPs / Tasks / Deliverables took place; during that session, each item was introduced by the responsible partner and the discussion by the entire consortium followed.
WP3: Application Specification
T3.1 Operational Requirements / D3 Operational Requirements
FHW, All
T3.2 Application Design / D4 TOURBOT Design
UNIFR, All
George Giannoulis mentioned that the two museums involved in the project should specify their requirements. Moreover, the tasks to be done by the robotic avatar should be specified in detail. At the same time, the information that will be stored regarding the exhibits should be determined.
Wolfram Burgard stated that it would be useful if scenaria/use cases/limitations of the overall application would be specified. In addition, on-site visits to the two museums would be needed to finalize the requirements and the design of the application.
Action: George Giannoulis and Wolfram Burgard to commonly arrange for the on-site visits/meetings for the purpose of application specification.
The meeting at MUSBON should take place beginning of Feb. 2000 (responsibility of Wolfram Burgard).
The meeting at BYZMUS should take place mid- or end of March 2000 (responsibility of George Giannoulis).
Specific dates for both meetings will be arranged over the e-mail to the whole consortium ().
Deadline: The meeting at MUSBON should be arranged by Friday, Jan. 28, 2000. The meeting at BYZMUS should be arranged during the meeting at MUSBON.
WP4: Site Information / D5 Site Information
UNIBONN, All
Armin Cremers stated that this WP should be based on known techniques for map building. Moreover, he differentiated between static information in the museums and dynamic information (e.g. live performances) and suggested ways for coping with it. Although the issue of “dynamic information” is not included in Annex I (project programme) it was received positively by the consortium. However, the consortium felt that no decision on this issue could be drawn at this point, and it was left for consideration at a later stage. Moreover, Armin proposed the use of simulation of the robot’s behavior, to cope with Internet delays, during tele-operation. It was agreed to consider this approach in the relevant developments.
WP5: Hardware Configuration
D6 Robotic Platform Hardware
THEON, All
D7 Workstation Hardware / Communications
UNIFR, All
Vassilis Savvaides stated that the robotic platform should be based on the RWI B21 since it is a well-developed and stable platform. Members of the consortium commented on the need for some anthropomorphic add-on features for the platform. Vassilis agreed and declared the feasibility from the technical point of view for such features.
Wolfram Burgard mentioned that the off-board workstation and the robot-workstation communications can be set-up using off-the-self components and it was agreed that this approach should be preferred for these components.
WP6: Avatar Navigation / D8 TOURBOT Navigation
FORTH, All
Dimitris Tsakiris made a detailed presentation of the navigation competences that are planned for the robotic avatar and the related software modules that support these competences. He differentiated the navigation capabilities into reactive navigation and targeted navigation and gave examples of each. In the discussion that followed it was agreed in principle to pursue the proposed navigation capabilities.
13:00 – 14:30Lunch Break
14:30 – 15:00Technical Issues (cont’d)
WP7: Interfaces
D9 Web Interface
FHW, All
D10 On-board Interface
UNIFR, All
George Giannoulis stated that the web-interface should be browser-based and should be simple and intuitive since the average TOURBOT user is not expected to be a technical person. The detailed design of the interface will follow application specification.
Wolfram Burgard considered the on-board interface and said that it should perform similar presentation operations with the web-interface. He also suggested that it should be implemented using an LCD touch screen as the physical medium.
For both interfaces, the issue of sound was also brought by Wolfram; it was argued that text-to-sound or prerecorded sounds would be two viable alternatives for that.
WP8: Integration / D11 HW & SW Integration
FORTH, All
Antonis Argyros presented a preliminary plan for integration, focusing on the integration of the various TOURBOT modules, check points where verification tests have to be performed, and assignment of partners to the activities involved. Moreover, Antonis stressed the fact that an operational system should be made available as early as possible in WP8. The plan was accepted in principle by the consortium and it was discussed how the integration could be closely monitored in the planned consortium meetings. Armin Cremers mentioned that the meeting in Bonn will be a good opportunity to check early versions of the system. Antonis pointed out that the two meetings in Bonn and THEON could be possibly interchanged. It was agreed that both options seem reasonable and the final decision will be taken at a later time.
WP9: Assessment and Evaluation / D12 TOURBOT Validation
MUSBON, BYZMUS, All
Andromachi Katselaki presented the views of BYZMUS on the assessment and evaluation of TOURBOT. She expressed the need to carefully plan the corresponding experiments in order to (a) acquire a good appreciation of the system’s performance and acceptability and (b) blend modern technology (TOURBOT system) and traditional museum exhibits with mutual respect and understanding of issues that are considered important in each sector. Both points were welcomed by the consortium.
In the discussion that followed, Wolfram Burgard asked if a statistical evaluation would be planned for TOURBOT. Panos Trahanias stated that the evaluation criteria are fully specified in Annex I and asked if BYZMUS plans to introduce additional criteria. However, it was felt that this could not be tackled in this early phase of the project and it was agreed to possibly re-consider it at a later stage.
15:30 – 16:00Coffee Break
16:00 – 17:00TOURBOT Publicity
Panos Trahanias, All
Panos Trahanias informed the consortium of issues that are related (mostly) to TOURBOT publicity. A number of printed and/or electronic documents are planned to be released, plus some other activities that fall under this topic:
web site - internal / external (FORTH)
Action: All project heads should send electronically to Panos Trahanias the logos of their organizations for inclusion in the web site.
Deadline: Friday, Jan. 21, 2000.
project presentation (FORTH)
editorials (FORTH)
fact sheets (FORTH)
dissemination & use plan (FHW & BYZMUS)
tech. implem. plan (UNIFR)
brochure (FORTH & BYZMUS)
flyer (FORTH & BYZMUS)
prospects of museum Robotics in EU (MUSBON)
workshop (FORTH & All)
video (FORTH & FHW)
links/cooperations (All)
The TOURBOT video is not a contractual obligation; still the consortium feels that it is very important to produce this video and it was agreed that it should be pursued. The participants that appear in parentheses next to each item have been proposed as the responsible sites for the corresponding item; both the participants involved and the consortium have agreed with the proposed assignments.
Action: The participants that are responsible for each item should prepare it within the time frame that appears in Annex I. Before finalizing it, an “almost-ready” version of it should be made available to the consortium for comments.
Deadline: For each item as specified in Annex I (Project Workplan).
Closing Remarks
Panos Trahanias, All
In his closing remarks, Panos stated that TOURBOT is steadily moving and it is obvious that the kick-off meeting was a successful one, since many issues have been discussed and in some cases agreed upon, and the consortium appeared competent and ready to pursue TOURBOT. He then wished all the success to the project and thanked those present for participating in the meeting.
All TCB members and Jan Hoorens made closing remarks acknowledging the success of the meeting and the fact that TOURBOT is already moving in the right track; they also thanked the hosts for organizing the meeting and for their hospitality.
END OF THE MEETING