academic_wg_seattle_meeting_09_dec_2018
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
academic_wg_seattle_meeting_09_dec_2018 [2018/12/09 22:09] cbaudoin_cebe-itkm.com Completed minutes |
academic_wg_seattle_meeting_09_dec_2018 [2018/12/10 02:25] jsmith |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Radu said that when students are looking for a project, they often expect their teacher to suggest one to them. Such a project could get some money from industrial sponsors and support from OMG members. We could define with a university a list of such potential projects related to the application of a standard. A concrete objective between now and the March 2019 meeting in Reston would be to ask the specification owners (of UML, SysML, BPMN, etc.) what problems or questions they would like addressed if they had a pool of students "at their disposal" to study them. Jim Logan gave empirical evidence of a problem that was solved better by people who knew OntoUML than by those who didn't. | Radu said that when students are looking for a project, they often expect their teacher to suggest one to them. Such a project could get some money from industrial sponsors and support from OMG members. We could define with a university a list of such potential projects related to the application of a standard. A concrete objective between now and the March 2019 meeting in Reston would be to ask the specification owners (of UML, SysML, BPMN, etc.) what problems or questions they would like addressed if they had a pool of students "at their disposal" to study them. Jim Logan gave empirical evidence of a problem that was solved better by people who knew OntoUML than by those who didn't. | ||
| - | Jason also proposed that we should define the contents of the "lightweight certification" program for various OMG standards. | + | Jason also proposed that we should define the contents of the "lightweight certification" program for various OMG standards. This is a second action items to accomplish before the next meeting. |
| + | |||
| + | Concrete goals for this OMG Meeting: | ||
| + | 1) Write a questionnaire intended for specification owners, which attempts to capture the two questions above, using language such as: | ||
| + | a) "Think on the specifications that are authored by your task force. If you had access to undergraduate and/or graduate level students, what projects would you ask them to do? Test creation? Validation? Research? Novel applications? User studies?" | ||
| + | b) "What are the core concepts or information that you wish undergraduate and graduate level students knew about your specifications? Would that provide a basic practical working knowledge? Would it give a simple base such that they could investigate further on their own?" | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2) Send questionnaire to all task force chairs, and specifically to those chairing TFs owning 'the big specs' (see above list) | ||
academic_wg_seattle_meeting_09_dec_2018.txt · Last modified: 2018/12/10 02:37 by jsmith
Page Tools
