Wednesday, February 4, 2009

ORF 2009 - Call for White Papers


Just a reminder that we need ALL proposed white paper abstracts in NOT LATER THAN 15 April 2009. However, the earlier that the abstracts are submitted, the easier will be our job since our "Approval Committee" is scattered around the world. Abstracts will be reviewed for

Technical focus
Potential interest to attendees

Possible subjects are:
Innovations to Rulebased Technology
Solutions to Technical Problems in Rulebased Technology
Homeland Security (problems with many object / many rules)
Processing Plants (Decisions on cracking tower problems)
Oil Rig or Building Design using Constraints
Shift Schedules using Constraint Based Programming
Scheduling Aircrafts, Trains, Taxis, Buses, etc.
Product Catalog Management
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Logistics (FedEx, UPS, etc.)
Configuration Problems (Aircraft, Computers, etc)
Complex Event Processing (Sliding Window Problem)
Rulebased Forecasting [my talk... :-) ]
Who gets a bailout and who doesn't :-)

Remember, this is a "sharing" conference where technical guys tell other technical guys HOW they did something.  We have seen plenty of PPTs about WHAT someone did, but we want to know how they did it.   For example, if you had to architect 20K rules and several thousand objects, how did you determine HOW to break out the rules into the various rule sets.  If you wrote something that utilized CEP then tell us HOW you solved the CEP problem.  What I'm going to share is the rational behind the RBF process, including the statistics, theory, etc.  Almost any business person should be really interested in reviewing their forecasting theory and statical classes.  :-)

Approvals for the abstracts will be sent out at the end of April or before so that you can get started on the white paper itself. At the end of the conference, the white papers will be collected into a Conference Proceedings. Whether they will be sold as bound copies (very expensive) or as electronic versions (no security in this one) we have not decided at this point. Probably, we will wait until we get the abstracts in before we make any kind of decision on that front.

The white paper itself must be submitted NOT LATER THAN 15 JULY 2009. Again, the earlier the better. The overhead that supports that goes along with the white paper must be submitted NOT LATER THAN 30 AUGUST 2009 in order to have it ready for the attendees.

At this point permit me to point out that we are not trying to be Geeks talking to Geeks about Geek things and nobody else should attend. Not at all! If you are a CIO, CTO, CEO or Senior Business Analysts then OF COURSE you are most welcome at October Rules Fest!  Especially if you want to learn about the "internals" of how a rulebased system actually works - something that I wish all business guys would do.  (Also, it's a great place to meet the Uber Geeks of the Rulebased Industry if you are looking for someone to help with your projects.)



Paul Vincent said...

James - might be worth explaining that by "White Paper" you mean conference paper...

jcmorris said...

Hi All,

I was going to let this ride, but since others seem to be unclear on James's definition of whitepaper vs. conference paper, I'll float my original concerns, too.

The publication of conference proceedings carries a certain connotation of rigor and authority, that the proceedings can be viewed as a trusted source of data, information, and knowledge regarding a particular domain topic. That rigor is embodied in several things:

* First, the academic and professional qualifications of the authors.
* Second, the academic and professional qualifications of the adjudicators.
* Third, the academic and professional standards of the governing body for the conference -- relative to other established organizations and conferences.
* Finally, the publishing standards and guidelines of the journal or proceeding itself.

To my knowledge, we have created none of this framework. So, I ask:

* What will be the level of review for the conference papers?
* Who will comprise the review panel?
* Should we adopt an academic level of rigor, or do non-disclosure issues dictate something less?
* What are the criteria?
* How will ORF compare in authority and rigor relative to other established organizations and their conferences?
* How should papers be annotated and cited? (I would propose IEEE standards.)

These points are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

In closing, writing an academic publication for a major journal or proceeding is not a trivial task -- there is significant time and effort involved.

If the payback for expending that effort is not clear, then to require such a paper from each presenter is a major tax on their time.

I think some additional guidance is in order. What do others think?

Jason Morris
Morris Technical Solutions LLC