OAUG Conference Paper Submission

The collective experience of the independent Oracle Applications Users Group (OAUG) membership is our most valued asset. Share your knowledge, discoveries, solutions, and successes with us at the Fall 2000 Conference at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, October 22-26. Submit your paper idea by the deadline of Thursday, June 1 at:
http://www.oaug.org/fall2000/frames/callpapers_fr.html
You can also submit a paper for the Asia/Pacific Conference in Brisbane, Australia, November 12-15. Submit your paper idea by the deadline of June 27 at:
http://www.oaug.org/ap2000/callpap_app.html
OAUG hopes to hear from many of you!

From the rest of your instructions:
To show a state of the object you need to list its fields
and the value of each of those fields. For reference types, draw an arrow from the field to
the object it represents. You should also show the state of any Room and Occupier objects that have
been created.At least make an attempt and if you truly do not understand, why waste time asking us? Go talk to your teacher
Edited by: Quacked on Nov 23, 2007 1:17 PM

Similar Messages

Advanced Pricing in Service Contracts

Hi
I have a customer requiring the use of formula's and pricing dff's in service contracts to price a contract line for billing.
EG: the price is calculated by:
range break price based on counter
+ percentage of value total transactions of period (can be captured in DFF or as separate counter).
Is this standard functionality, or do you need bespoke to solve this requirement?
Thanks,
J-M Meeus
[email protected]

Advanced Pricing is tightly integrated with Contracts.
Refer to OAUG Conference Paper database for a recent presentation - Setup and Use Advanced Pricing for Service Contracts.

Accounting entries(Debit/Credit) in Oracle Project Suite

Hi,
Please provide me the accounting entries(Debit/Credit) for following cycles in Oracle Project Suites
1>P2P cycle using Oracle Projects
a> PR-PO-RECEIPT->AP->PROJECTS
B>AP->PROJECTS
2>Miscelenous Issue to Projects
3>Projects to Assets

Hi
I had published a paper on Collaborate 2008, which include among other things the inforamtion you are asking for.
Paper title - Don’t Get Lost in the Labyrinth of Supplier Cost Flows Into Projects
If you have access to the OAUG conference Paper Database you might find it there. Otherwise, send me an email and I'll forward the paper to you.
Dina

OAUG Responds to Oracle Proposal

An Open Letter to Mark Jarvis and Ron Wohl
Mark, Ron
Thank you for setting out your proposal to the OAUG on AppsNet. It was useful to see it in writing, although, as you mentioned, it is largely similar to what was proposed and presented to our membership a year ago. As we had a teleconference a few hours before publication it would have been useful to have been given some advance notice of your plan to publish.
However as this has occurred I would like to clear up some errors and omissions in the document.
1. You state that the OAUG would select 100% of the user papers. You omit to mention that would represent 25% of the total conference content, and that 75% would therefore not be user papers (as explained to us in the conference call at 9am PST yesterday, Wednesday 23 May).
2. You state that no proposals were ever put forward by the OAUG board. In the 23 May conference call, just hours before your AppsNet posting, we had proposed that if you were able to support a Fall North American OAUG conference, we would be willing to collaborate with you in line with your proposals for the Spring in North America as well as in Europe and Asia Pacific.
3. You state that you would be required to take 200 developers out of development for a week of OAUG, and before you know it we would have 400 Oracle employees engaged in each conference. Perhaps you had forgotten that a few hours earlier we had indicated that the level of support that we were requesting for the Fall conference was development staff to cover 55 sessions. Given that the next two Fall OAUG events are on the West Coast, even with travel and preparation time this represents about 120 people days, rather than the 2800 employee weeks that you refer to.
4. Twice you state that there are going to be seven conferences in the next twelve months, and refer to four OAUG conferences. When you asked on the conference call if we would participate with you in Europe, we said yes, we would. When you asked where our venue was for Europe next year, we told you that in light of the current situation we had released it. When we discussed Asia Pacific we told you that we intended to hold our conference in Sydney, but that we did not believe that it would affect your conference in Singapore which is several months and several thousand miles away. We agreed that we would be willing to discuss the model in Asia Pacific with you, as you had indicated the possibility of an alternative style event. We were not clear how that would work. In addition, given our willingness to discuss the North American model, you were well aware that seven conferences in the next twelve months was most unlikely.
5. You stated that for the past five years a majority of Oracle employees attending and staffing OAUG conferences were required to pay full attendance. I dont propose to count, but for the record, approximately sixty were free, any Oracle presenters above the sixty were free, and the conference workers paid a reduced rate to cover the costs involved, such as food. Any others who decided to attend did indeed have to pay.
It is hard for us to understand why it has been so difficult to bring this issue to closure. The OAUG Board understands that once Oracle had committed to its AppsWorld events for Spring 2001 that you were too busy to meet with us to discuss a longer term resolution, for example when we proposed a meeting with you in January. It was unfortunate that you were unable to meet the target date of meeting in March after your conference. We were pleased that we finally met on 30 April, and that we appeared to be making some progress in identifying issues and seeking to resolve them. It was disappointing that you had to postpone the agreed follow up meeting from the first week in May to 23 May, and that only then were you able to inform us that you had a deadline for just a week later.
We had sought to avoid going into details on the discussions in public, as we felt that might jeopardise progress. I am not clear what your purpose was in doing so. We continue to be disappointed by Oracles inability to compromise, and that after all of this time, this proposal so closely resembles the original proposal made last year. I would like to make quite clear what the OAUG has offered, and the flexibility that we have shown in being willing to move from the existing, successful model, to try to accommodate your valid needs to reach a wider audience.
The OAUG has proposed that :
7 The OAUG would be willing to collaborate with Oracle on their AppsWorld events in North America, if in return Oracle would participate in the OAUGs independent Fall North American conference to the extent of approximately sixty development staff.
7 The OAUG, in line with the majority of feedback received from European users, would be willing to collaborate with Oracle on their AppsWorld event in Europe.
7 The OAUG, after the Sydney Asia Pacific event which we have committed to in 2001, would be willing to collaborate with Oracle in their AppsWorld event in Asia Pacific, subject to clarification as to the form of that event.
I believe that is a more than reasonable proposal.
Given that Oracle decided to move these discussions into the public arena, that they did so in such an extensive way just a few hours after a discussion with the OAUG, and without giving any advance warning, I am forced to wonder whether Oracle are really negotiating in good faith in this matter
The OAUG has always stood for the independent voice of the user community. We have received consistent and clear feedback from our members that they wish have a forum for education and feedback which is, and can clearly be seen to be, independent from the Oracle message. We recognise Oracles marketing needs, and believe that our proposed compromise meets those needs, and the stated needs of existing users. If Oracle really had the interests of the users at heart it would not behave in this way. However such behaviour by Oracle only goes to reinforce the importance and value of a truly independent users group.
Jeremy Young
OAUG President
null

An Open Letter to Mark Jarvis and Ron Wohl
Mark, Ron
Thank you for setting out your proposal to the OAUG on AppsNet. It was useful to see it in writing, although, as you mentioned, it is largely similar to what was proposed and presented to our membership a year ago. As we had a teleconference a few hours before publication it would have been useful to have been given some advance notice of your plan to publish.
However as this has occurred I would like to clear up some errors and omissions in the document.
1. You state that the OAUG would select 100% of the user papers. You omit to mention that would represent 25% of the total conference content, and that 75% would therefore not be user papers (as explained to us in the conference call at 9am PST yesterday, Wednesday 23 May).
2. You state that no proposals were ever put forward by the OAUG board. In the 23 May conference call, just hours before your AppsNet posting, we had proposed that if you were able to support a Fall North American OAUG conference, we would be willing to collaborate with you in line with your proposals for the Spring in North America as well as in Europe and Asia Pacific.
3. You state that you would be required to take 200 developers out of development for a week of OAUG, and before you know it we would have 400 Oracle employees engaged in each conference. Perhaps you had forgotten that a few hours earlier we had indicated that the level of support that we were requesting for the Fall conference was development staff to cover 55 sessions. Given that the next two Fall OAUG events are on the West Coast, even with travel and preparation time this represents about 120 people days, rather than the 2800 employee weeks that you refer to.
4. Twice you state that there are going to be seven conferences in the next twelve months, and refer to four OAUG conferences. When you asked on the conference call if we would participate with you in Europe, we said yes, we would. When you asked where our venue was for Europe next year, we told you that in light of the current situation we had released it. When we discussed Asia Pacific we told you that we intended to hold our conference in Sydney, but that we did not believe that it would affect your conference in Singapore which is several months and several thousand miles away. We agreed that we would be willing to discuss the model in Asia Pacific with you, as you had indicated the possibility of an alternative style event. We were not clear how that would work. In addition, given our willingness to discuss the North American model, you were well aware that seven conferences in the next twelve months was most unlikely.
5. You stated that for the past five years a majority of Oracle employees attending and staffing OAUG conferences were required to pay full attendance. I dont propose to count, but for the record, approximately sixty were free, any Oracle presenters above the sixty were free, and the conference workers paid a reduced rate to cover the costs involved, such as food. Any others who decided to attend did indeed have to pay.
It is hard for us to understand why it has been so difficult to bring this issue to closure. The OAUG Board understands that once Oracle had committed to its AppsWorld events for Spring 2001 that you were too busy to meet with us to discuss a longer term resolution, for example when we proposed a meeting with you in January. It was unfortunate that you were unable to meet the target date of meeting in March after your conference. We were pleased that we finally met on 30 April, and that we appeared to be making some progress in identifying issues and seeking to resolve them. It was disappointing that you had to postpone the agreed follow up meeting from the first week in May to 23 May, and that only then were you able to inform us that you had a deadline for just a week later.
We had sought to avoid going into details on the discussions in public, as we felt that might jeopardise progress. I am not clear what your purpose was in doing so. We continue to be disappointed by Oracles inability to compromise, and that after all of this time, this proposal so closely resembles the original proposal made last year. I would like to make quite clear what the OAUG has offered, and the flexibility that we have shown in being willing to move from the existing, successful model, to try to accommodate your valid needs to reach a wider audience.
The OAUG has proposed that :
7 The OAUG would be willing to collaborate with Oracle on their AppsWorld events in North America, if in return Oracle would participate in the OAUGs independent Fall North American conference to the extent of approximately sixty development staff.
7 The OAUG, in line with the majority of feedback received from European users, would be willing to collaborate with Oracle on their AppsWorld event in Europe.
7 The OAUG, after the Sydney Asia Pacific event which we have committed to in 2001, would be willing to collaborate with Oracle in their AppsWorld event in Asia Pacific, subject to clarification as to the form of that event.
I believe that is a more than reasonable proposal.
Given that Oracle decided to move these discussions into the public arena, that they did so in such an extensive way just a few hours after a discussion with the OAUG, and without giving any advance warning, I am forced to wonder whether Oracle are really negotiating in good faith in this matter
The OAUG has always stood for the independent voice of the user community. We have received consistent and clear feedback from our members that they wish have a forum for education and feedback which is, and can clearly be seen to be, independent from the Oracle message. We recognise Oracles marketing needs, and believe that our proposed compromise meets those needs, and the stated needs of existing users. If Oracle really had the interests of the users at heart it would not behave in this way. However such behaviour by Oracle only goes to reinforce the importance and value of a truly independent users group.
Jeremy Young
OAUG President
null

OAUG Responds to Oracle's Proposal

An Open Letter to Mark Jarvis and Ron Wohl
Mark, Ron
Thank you for setting out your proposal to the OAUG on AppsNet. It was useful to see it in writing, although, as you mentioned, it is largely similar to what was proposed and presented to our membership a year ago. As we had a teleconference a few hours before publication it would have been useful to have been given some advance notice of your plan to publish.
However as this has occurred I would like to clear up some errors and omissions in the document.
1. You state that the OAUG would select 100% of the user papers. You omit to mention that would represent 25% of the total conference content, and that 75% would therefore not be user papers (as explained to us in the conference call at 9am PST yesterday, Wednesday 23 May).
2. You state that no proposals were ever put forward by the OAUG board. In the 23 May conference call, just hours before your AppsNet posting, we had proposed that if you were able to support a Fall North American OAUG conference, we would be willing to collaborate with you in line with your proposals for the Spring in North America as well as in Europe and Asia Pacific.
3. You state that you would be required to take 200 developers out of development for a week of OAUG, and before you know it we would have 400 Oracle employees engaged in each conference. Perhaps you had forgotten that a few hours earlier we had indicated that the level of support that we were requesting for the Fall conference was development staff to cover 55 sessions. Given that the next two Fall OAUG events are on the West Coast, even with travel and preparation time this represents about 120 people days, rather than the 2800 employee weeks that you refer to.
4. Twice you state that there are going to be seven conferences in the next twelve months, and refer to four OAUG conferences. When you asked on the conference call if we would participate with you in Europe, we said yes, we would. When you asked where our venue was for Europe next year, we told you that in light of the current situation we had released it. When we discussed Asia Pacific we told you that we intended to hold our conference in Sydney, but that we did not believe that it would affect your conference in Singapore which is several months and several thousand miles away. We agreed that we would be willing to discuss the model in Asia Pacific with you, as you had indicated the possibility of an alternative style event. We were not clear how that would work. In addition, given our willingness to discuss the North American model, you were well aware that seven conferences in the next twelve months was most unlikely.
5. You stated that for the past five years a majority of Oracle employees attending and staffing OAUG conferences were required to pay full attendance. I dont propose to count, but for the record, approximately sixty were free, any Oracle presenters above the sixty were free, and the conference workers paid a reduced rate to cover the costs involved, such as food. Any others who decided to attend did indeed have to pay.
It is hard for us to understand why it has been so difficult to bring this issue to closure. The OAUG Board understands that once Oracle had committed to its AppsWorld events for Spring 2001 that you were too busy to meet with us to discuss a longer term resolution, for example when we proposed a meeting with you in January. It was unfortunate that you were unable to meet the target date of meeting in March after your conference. We were pleased that we finally met on 30 April, and that we appeared to be making some progress in identifying issues and seeking to resolve them. It was disappointing that you had to postpone the agreed follow up meeting from the first week in May to 23 May, and that only then were you able to inform us that you had a deadline for just a week later.
We had sought to avoid going into details on the discussions in public, as we felt that might jeopardise progress. I am not clear what your purpose was in doing so. We continue to be disappointed by Oracles inability to compromise, and that after all of this time, this proposal so closely resembles the original proposal made last year. I would like to make quite clear what the OAUG has offered, and the flexibility that we have shown in being willing to move from the existing, successful model, to try to accommodate your valid needs to reach a wider audience.
The OAUG has proposed that :
7 The OAUG would be willing to collaborate with Oracle on their AppsWorld events in North America, if in return Oracle would participate in the OAUGs independent Fall North American conference to the extent of approximately sixty development staff.
7 The OAUG, in line with the majority of feedback received from European users, would be willing to collaborate with Oracle on their AppsWorld event in Europe.
7 The OAUG, after the Sydney Asia Pacific event which we have committed to in 2001, would be willing to collaborate with Oracle in their AppsWorld event in Asia Pacific, subject to clarification as to the form of that event.
I believe that is a more than reasonable proposal.
Given that Oracle decided to move these discussions into the public arena, that they did so in such an extensive way just a few hours after a discussion with the OAUG, and without giving any advance warning, I am forced to wonder whether Oracle are really negotiating in good faith in this matter
The OAUG has always stood for the independent voice of the user community. We have received consistent and clear feedback from our members that they wish have a forum for education and feedback which is, and can clearly be seen to be, independent from the Oracle message. We recognise Oracles marketing needs, and believe that our proposed compromise meets those needs, and the stated needs of existing users. If Oracle really had the interests of the users at heart it would not behave in this way. However such behaviour by Oracle only goes to reinforce the importance and value of a truly independent users group.
Jeremy Young
OAUG President
null

Have you tried putting something like Apache infront of the ORDS and have /ords setup in there to need http basic?

IPTComm 2010 Call for Papers: Deadline Extended

CALL FOR PAPERS: DEADLINE EXTENDED
4th ACM Conference on Principles, Systems and Applications of IP Telecommunications
IPTComm 2010
http://www.iptcomm.org
August 2-3, 2010
Leibniz Supercomputing Center
Munich, Germany
IMPORTANT DATES
================
Paper registration: Midnight, March 5, 2010.
Paper submission: Midnight March 19th, 2010 (Firm deadline).
Notification of acceptance: May 21st, 2010.
Final camera-ready submission: June 30th, 2010.
Conference dates: August 2-3, 2010.
The paper submission deadline has been extended to March 19, 2010.
However, authors are required to register with EDAS and submit
their paper abstract by the original deadline of Midnight March 5,
2010.
The IP communications domain has matured beyond providing VoIP only
services. Universities, enterprises, businesses and individual
consumers routinely use VoIP. The focus of IP communications is now on
the operations, management, administration and provisioning aspects of
large-scale, reliable and secure communication systems. To this extent,
the research and standardization work now includes log file analysis,
session tracing across proxy meshes and overload control. As IP
communications grapples with these issues, newer technologies in the
form of cloud-based IP communication systems; peer-to-peer VoIP
networks; use of IP communications in virtual worlds; social
networks and IP communications are starting to assert a strong
presence in the IP communications domain.
The aim of the IPTComm conference is to serve as a platform for
researchers from academia, research labs, industry and government to
share their ideas, views, results and experiences in the field of
IP-based telecommunication. IPTComm will include presentations of
theoretical and experimental achievements, innovative systems,
prototyping efforts, case studies, and advancements in technology.
We invite authors to submit papers in the following and related areas:
New services and service models
* Over-the-top services.
* Social networking and IP communications.
* IP telecommunications in virtual worlds.
* Compositional services and model checking.
* Cloud-based IP communications infrastructure.
* Rapid application development frameworks.
* APIs and enablers for IP communication services.
* Browser-based IP communication services.
* Context-aware communication services.
* IMS and NGN services.
Management and Resilience
* Advantages and disadvantages of IP communications as a P2P
application.
* Advances in P2P overlays for IP communications systems.
* Management of IP communications systems and networks.
* Overload management schemes for IP communications.
* Log files and log file analysis for IP communication systems.
* Scalability of large-scale IP communication systems.
* Traffic and QoS measurement of VoIP traffic.
* Self-tuning and self-monitoring IP communications systems.
* Service discovery.
* Energy consumption and energy management in IP communication
systems.
* Incentives in P2P IP communication systems.
* Resilience in P2P IP communication system.
Security
* Identity management for IP communications systems.
* Anonymity and privacy in IP communications.
* Forensics and diagnostics in IP communication systems.
* Techniques to detect, mitigate and prevent SPIT, phreaking
and vishing.
* Denial of service detection and prevention.
Mobile IP Communications
* Mobile IP communication services.
* Mobility in cloud-based IP communications infrastructure.
* Mobile P2P IP communication systems.
Miscellaneous
* The role of IP communications in the power grid.
* Open source development in IP communications.
* Research issues in vertical IP communication markets (e.g.,
privacy in the medical field, location in logistical
field, etc.)
* Regulatory issues in IP communications.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
==================
Papers submission is handled by EDAS (http://edas.info/N8459).
IPTComm solicits full papers up to 12 pages in length, in two-column
ACM conference format
(see http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates). All
submissions must describe original research, not published nor
currently under review for another conference or journal. The program
committee will referee all papers, and accepted papers will be
published in the conference proceedings. Papers will also be published in
the ACM Digital Library.
In 2010, IPTComm will be accepting short papers of at least 5 pages and
no more than 6 pages. The aim of the short paper category is to help
maintain a published record of work carried out as well as facilitate
future affiliations and foster collaborative work. Short papers are
subject to the same rigorous review process as full papers and follow
the same submission process, schedule and expectation of presentation as
the full papers.
IMPORTANT DATES
================
Paper registration: Midnight, March 5, 2010.
Paper submission: Midnight March 19th, 2010 (Firm deadline).
Notification of acceptance: May 21st, 2010.
Final camera-ready submission: June 30th, 2010.
Conference dates: August 2-3, 2010.
Conference Location: Leibniz Supercomputing Center, Munich, Germany.
CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS
====================
Georg Carle (Technical University of Munich)
Helmut Reiser (Leibniz Supercomputing Center)
TPC CO-CHAIRS
=============
Gonzalo Camarillo (Ericsson Research)
Vijay K. Gurbani (Bell Laboratories/Alcatel-Lucent)
DEMONSTRATION AND INDUSTRY TALKS CO-CHAIRS
==========================================
Carol Davids (Illinois Institute of Technology)
Saverio Niccolini (NEC Laboratories Europe)
PUBLICITY CHAIR
===============
Gregory Bond (AT&T Research)
Steering Committee
==================
Gregory Bond (AT&T Research)
Saverio Niccolini (NEC Laboratories Europe)
Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia University)
Dorgham Sisalem (Tekelec)
Radu State (University of Luxembourg)
TPC MEMBERS
===========
John Buford Avaya Labs Research
Eric Chen NTT Corporation
Eric Cheung AT&T Labs - Research
Tasos Dagiuklas Technological Educational Institute of Mesolonghi
Carol Davids Illinois Institute of Technology
Ali Fessi Technical University of Munich
Rosario Garroppo University of Pisa
Aniruddha Gokhale Vanderbilt University
Swapna Gokhale University of Connecticut
Carmen Guerrero University Carlos III of Madrid
Christian Hoene University of Tubingen
Alan Jeffrey Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Cullen Jennings Cisco
Salvatore Loreto Ericsson
Jouni Maenpaa Ericsson
Enrico Marocco Telecom Italia
Joerg Ott Helsinki University of Technology
Victor Pascual Avila Acme Packets
Joachim Posegga University of Passau
Anand Prasad NEC Corporation
Yacine Rebahi Fraunhofer Institut Fokus, Berlin
Ivica Rimac Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Ronaldo Salles Military Institute of Engineering (Brazil)
Stefano Salsano University of Rome "Tor Vergata"
Jan Seedorf NEC Europe Ltd.
Jose Solar Technical University of Denmark
Ivan Vidal University Carlos III of Madrid
Xiaotao Wu Avaya Labs Research
Pamela Zave AT&T Laboratories

Reminder: Our call for papers is closing on Monday 27th July. Be sure to send your abstracts to [[email protected]]
We also have a Twitter account and will be posting updates via that. Se sure to follow: aus_ora_spatial
Ross.

IPTComm 2010: Call for Papers

****** NOTE: Submissions due on Mar 5, 2010 *******
IPTCOMM 2010
============
The Fourth Conference on Principles, Systems and Applications of
IP Telecommunications
August 2 and 3, 2010
Leibniz Supercomputing Center
Munich, Germany
http://iptcomm.org
The IP communications domain has matured beyond providing VoIP only
services. Universities, enterprises, businesses and individual
consumers routinely use VoIP. The focus of IP communications is now on
the operations, management, administration and provisioning aspects of
large-scale, reliable and secure communication systems. To this extent,
the research and standardization work now includes log file analysis,
session tracing across proxy meshes and overload control. As IP
communications grapples with these issues, newer technologies in the
form of cloud-based IP communication systems; peer-to-peer VoIP
networks; use of IP communications in virtual worlds; social
networks and IP communications are starting to assert a strong
presence in the IP communications domain.
The aim of the IPTComm conference is to serve as a platform for
researchers from academia, research labs, industry and government to
share their ideas, views, results and experiences in the field of
IP-based telecommunication. IPTComm will include presentations of
theoretical and experimental achievements, innovative systems,
prototyping efforts, case studies, and advancements in technology.
We invite authors to submit papers in the following and related areas:
New services and service models
* Over-the-top services.
* Social networking and IP communications.
* IP telecommunications in virtual worlds.
* Compositional services and model checking.
* Cloud-based IP communications infrastructure.
* Rapid application development frameworks.
* APIs and enablers for IP communication services.
* Browser-based IP communication services.
* Context-aware communication services.
* IMS and NGN services.
Management and Resilience
* Advantages and disadvantages of IP communications as a P2P
application.
* Advances in P2P overlays for IP communications systems.
* Management of IP communications systems and networks.
* Overload management schemes for IP communications.
* Log files and log file analysis for IP communication systems.
* Scalability of large-scale IP communication systems.
* Traffic and QoS measurement of VoIP traffic.
* Self-tuning and self-monitoring IP communications systems.
* Service discovery.
* Energy consumption and energy management in IP communication
systems.
* Incentives in P2P IP communication systems.
* Resilience in P2P IP communication system.
Security
* Identity management for IP communications systems.
* Anonymity and privacy in IP communications.
* Forensics and diagnostics in IP communication systems.
* Techniques to detect, mitigate and prevent SPIT, phreaking
and vishing.
* Denial of service detection and prevention.
Mobile IP Communications
* Mobile IP communication services.
* Mobility in cloud-based IP communications infrastructure.
* Mobile P2P IP communication systems.
Miscellaneous
* The role of IP communications in the power grid.
* Open source development in IP communications.
* Research issues in vertical IP communication markets (e.g.,
privacy in the medical field, location in logistical
field, etc.)
* Regulatory issues in IP communications.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
==================
Papers submission is handled by EDAS (http://edas.info/N8459).
IPTComm solicits full papers up to 12 pages in length, in two-column
ACM conference format
(see http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates). All
submissions must describe original research, not published nor
currently under review for another conference or journal. The program
committee will referee all papers, and accepted papers will be
published in the conference proceedings. Pending cooperation agreements,
papers will also be published in the ACM Digital Library.
In 2010, IPTComm will be accepting short papers of at least 5 pages and
no more than 6 pages. The aim of the short paper category is to help
maintain a published record of work carried out as well as facilitate
future affiliations and foster collaborative work. Short papers are
subject to the same rigorous review process as full papers and follow
the same submission process, schedule and expectation of presentation as
the full papers.
IMPORTANT DATES
================
Paper submission: Midnight March 5th, 2010.
Notification of acceptance: May 21st, 2010.
Final camera-ready submission: June 30th, 2010.
Conference dates: August 2-3, 2010.
Conference Location: Leibniz Supercomputing Center, Munich, Germany.
CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS
====================
Georg Carle (Technical University of Munich)
Helmut Reiser (Leibniz Supercomputing Center)
TPC CO-CHAIRS
=============
Gonzalo Camarillo (Ericsson Research)
Vijay K. Gurbani (Bell Laboratories/Alcatel-Lucent)
DEMONSTRATION AND INDUSTRY TALKS CO-CHAIRS
==========================================
Carol Davids (Illinois Institute of Technology)
Saverio Niccolini (NEC Laboratories Europe)
PUBLICITY CHAIR
===============
Gregory Bond (AT&T Research)
Steering Committee
==================
Gregory Bond (AT&T Research)
Saverio Niccolini (NEC Laboratories Europe)
Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia University)
Dorgham Sisalem (Tekelec)
Radu State (University of Luxembourg)
TPC MEMBERS
===========
John Buford Avaya Labs Research
Eric Chen NTT Corporation
Eric Cheung AT&T Labs - Research
Tasos Dagiuklas Technological Educational Institute of Mesolonghi
Carol Davids Illinois Institute of Technology
Ali Fessi Technical University of Munich
Rosario Garroppo University of Pisa
Aniruddha Gokhale Vanderbilt University
Swapna Gokhale University of Connecticut
Carmen Guerrero University Carlos III of Madrid
Christian Hoene University of Tubingen
Alan Jeffrey Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Cullen Jennings Cisco
Salvatore Loreto Ericsson
Jouni Maenpaa Ericsson
Enrico Marocco Telecom Italia
Joerg Ott Helsinki University of Technology
Victor Pascual Avila Acme Packets
Joachim Posegga University of Passau
Anand Prasad NEC Corporation
Yacine Rebahi Fraunhofer Institut Fokus, Berlin
Ivica Rimac Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Ronaldo Salles Military Institute of Engineering (Brazil)
Stefano Salsano University of Rome "Tor Vergata"
Jan Seedorf NEC Europe Ltd.
Jose Solar Technical University of Denmark
Ivan Vidal University Carlos III of Madrid
Xiaotao Wu Avaya Labs Research
Pamela Zave AT&T Laboratories

Reminder: Our call for papers is closing on Monday 27th July. Be sure to send your abstracts to [[email protected]]
We also have a Twitter account and will be posting updates via that. Se sure to follow: aus_ora_spatial
Ross.

IPTComm 2007 Call for Papers

Please find enclosed the Call for Papers for a new conference devoted to IP telecommunications to be held in New York, July 2007. You are encouraged to circulate this CFP to interested colleagues, mailing lists, forums and blogs.
Greg Bond
IPTComm 2007 Co-Chair
==============================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS
IPTComm 2007
PRINCIPLES, SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS OF IP TELECOMMUNICATIONS
19, 20 July 2007
Columbia University
NY, USA
http://iptcomm.org
While standards and products now support PSTN-equivalent services for voice, video and text over IP, there are significant difficulties in deploying large-scale, reliable and secure IP telecommunication systems. Services that go beyond basic call features remain hard to develop and deploy.
The aim of the IPTComm conference is to serve as a platform for researchers from academia and research labs, industry and government to share their ideas, views, results and experiences in the field of IP-based telecommunication. IPTComm will include presentations of theoretical and experimental achievements, innovative security systems, prototyping efforts, case studies, and advancements in technology directly affecting IP-based telecommunication in general and VoIP and IMS services in particular.
We invite authors to submit papers in the following and related areas:
VoIP and IMS Security:
*     Denial of Service detection and prevention
*     Security models of voice, video and text over IP services
*     Detection and prevention of SPIT, Phreaking, Vishing
*     Fraud detection and prevention
*     Prevention and mitigation of security attacks
*     End-to-end security
*     Inter-provider trust and verification schemes
Qos and billing:
*     QoS for voice and video
*     Traffic and QoS measurement of VoIP and IMS traffic
*     Billing, AAA
*     Management of VoIP infrastructure and services
*     VoIP and IMS system performance, reliability and scalability
Convergent Services:
*     VoIP emergency services
*     Service architectures (e.g. Parlay, SIP Servlets, IMS)
*     Service creation environments and languages
*     Presence and event notification
*     Interactive collaboration beyond voice, video and text
*     Feature interaction
The IPTComm conference is a two-day conference.
PAPER SUBMISSION
IPTComm solicits full papers up to 12 pages in length, in two-column ACM conference format (see http://www.acm.org/sigs/pubs/proceed/template.html). All submissions must describe original research, not published nor currently under review for another conference or journal. The program committee will referee all papers, and accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Pending cooperation agreements, papers will also be published in the ACM Digital Library.
DEADLINES
Submission deadline: February 28, 2007
Notification: May 01, 2007
Final Submission: June 10, 2007
CONFERENCE CHAIRS
Gregory W. Bond - AT&T
Henning Schulzrinne - Columbia University
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Gregory W. Bond - AT&T
Sapan Bhatia - Princeton University
Gonzalo Camarillo - Ericsson
George Carle - Tubingen University
Eric Chen - NTT
Charles Consel - Inria
Ram Dantu - University of North Texas
Luigi Logrippo - Universite du Quebec en Outaouais
Evan H. Magill - University of Stirling
Saverio Niccolini - NEC
Aki Niemi - Nokia
Calton Pu - Georgia Tech
Gunter Schafer - University of Ilmenau
Henning Schulzrinne - Columbia University
Dorgham Sisalem - Tekelec
Radu State - Inria
Simon Tsang - Telcordia
Xiaotao Wu - Avaya
Pamela Zave - AT&T

We haven't seen 'the call' go out. Remember OpenWorld is about a month later this year.
We will post something here as soon as we get the word.
thanks
Steve

Can I anybody provide me the presentaiotn on Oracle POS, BO, and CO

Hello All
Can anybody help me in finding the presentation on Oracle POS, BO and CO, this presentaion should be interactive enough to explain about POS, CO and BO to a newbie
Regards
Praveen pandey

Hi Praveen,
If you got access to Oracle Metalink, I can recommend the
Retail POS Knowledge Browser Product Page, note id 3300931.1. Please look for the R13 overview.
If you got access to Oracle Partner Network, there is plenty of stuff there re. ORPOS etc., e.g.
http://www.oracle.com/partners/education/featured_train/global/oracle-retail-toi-training.html
Also see https://competencycenter.oracle.com/opncc/glps.cc
Also at http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/oracle_retail.html one can find the user guides and operations guide of these products. Ops Guide usually has some good conceptual diagrams.
Also the OAUG and OOW conference paper archives may help.
No pre-cooked solution, but I hope some fair to reasonable pointers - all available from http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Oracle+Retail+Online+Resources+and+Community+Overview
Regards, Erik

How to export "original" w/o Lr adjustments?

I've searched this "6 ways from Sunday" and can't find an answer. Often I will start the edit process in Lr (making various adjustments including cropping, changes in white balance, etc.) and decide for variety of reasons that I need to work on the ORIGINAL file without Lr's adjustments. The export dialog has "export to hard drive" and under file settings: Image format "Original." Despite selecting this and requesting no other changes exporting ALWAYS includes Lr edits. I've worked in preferences and in the export options and as I said done a lot of searching but can't seem to get to the original (as in unaltered) file. The only way to do this is to go to the edited file in Lr and reset or delete all adjustments, then export. Note this also happens with "Edit in Ps." Why, you ask, would one want this? Example: I have to provide a team photo to the newspaper in a specific format. I then want to use the same original photo to create a poster for possible sale. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to get 15 kids to all have their eyes open at the same time? ) Of course the cropping and treatment of a poster is significantly different than that necessary for paper submission.
Again, I've looked and doubtlessly overlooked, but can't find an answer. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
Robert
Lr 5.3, Mac OS X 10.8.5 (all current updates) Original files are .CR2 though I can't see how this would be relevant.

Thanks for the quick responses. Suzanne, the "Create Virtual Copy" is a great idea. I actually had no clue what Adobe meant by "virtual" in this case. Seems as if it's missed named as what one is doing is marking the original in place.
Bob your explanation that it depends on how the the viewing program interprets the metadata makes sense. I can see an argument from Adobe that obviously you'll want to use the work you've done if you export it. On the other hand nearly all of my plugins provide a choice that says something like "Open with Lightroom changes?" Would be trivial for Adobe to add this both to "Export as Original" and to "Edit in Ps." I would argue that very few people would interpret "Export as Original" to mean "Export in original format, but include all the changes you've made."
I came to Lr from a competing program that allowed one to set whether or not they wanted virtual copies created when an adjustment was made. I always chose this approach and while one might end up with several intermediate "views" they were easy to stack and easy to delete any you didn't want to retain. I note that there is stacking in Lr but haven't figured out what it does other than to take a selection of pix and put them in a pile.
Again, thanks. I'll experiment.
Robert

End tag error in Office 2010 professional plus

I have my research paper got corrupted some how. When I try to open it, I get the following error:
"The name in the end tag of the element must match the element type in the start tag.
Location: Part: /word/document.xml, Line 2, Column: 5119889"
I am using Office 2010 Professional Plus.
I tried to install office service pack 1, but I get this error: "The expected version of the product is not found on the system"
I need to restore this document as the deadline of paper submission is approach fast. I would really appreciate any kind of help.

Seems that you've received an "end tag" error when you open a DOCX file in Word 2010. After installing Office 2010 SP1 as
KB2528942 suggested but get the error "The expected version of the product is not found on the system".
Office 2013 and Office 2010 Service Pack 1 resolves this issue for new files. It will also prevent the problem from recurring with any files that were recovered with the Fix it solution in this
article.
Have you tried to install the hotfix in
KB2528942 "fix for me" section?
If you are familiar with editing XML, you can try to fix the problem yourself by correcting the mismatched oMath tags in the document. See the following example:
Incorrect tags:
<mc:AlternateContent>
<mc:Choice Requires=”wps”>
<m:oMath>
</mc:AlternateContent>
</m:oMath>
Correct tags:
<m:oMath>
<mc:AlternateContent>
<mc:Choice Requires=”wps”>
</mc:AlternateContent>
</m:oMath>
Note: unzip the source file by unzip tool and you will also have to use an application such as Notepad to edit the XML.
Feel free to post back.
Tony Chen
TechNet Community Support

How to restrict user from deleting record

Dear All,
Kindly share your experience...
Situation: My client have one SOB, used by several branches. Each branch has its own branch code in Chart of Account (accounting flexfield). Currently, to prevent branch accessing other branch's journal in General Ledger Module, we set account security (segment Branch) for each responsibility. In this way, batch header and journal header are still shared. Branch A still can see branch B's batch header and journal header, and even can delete the journals. This is very risky. Client urges to hide 'delete' icon from the toolbars and menu or disable 'delete' journal function for certain responsibility.
Questions: how to solve that problem without modifying the form?
Thanks,
KC

You may want to consider using the CUSTOM.pll. Basically its an "approved" way to do Form customization. You will need to understand basic Forms programming.
Metalink Note 73505.1 is fairly good.
There's also an OAUG white paper (2000) by Brad Goodwin
Ken

Best way to Rebuild multi-master replication

I have a site (A) which has been modified (tables and columns and such) that was used as the master replication site.
I have another site (B) which was the target site. The tables in site B have not been changed.
The replication is functioning correctly (as the columns and tables were only additions).
All the replication is asynchronous and is divided into to groups (one that refreshes every 2 minutes and one that refreshes every 15 minutes)
I want to bring site B up to date (move the changes from site A into site B).
I know that the data in the added columns has not been utilized as the new software was not in production yet.
I know I will need to rebuild the replication groups to include the missing columns, and I presume I will need to stop the replication (I will disable the PUSH so I can still work with the master database).
I will also need to add the new tables to the replication groups.
I can rebuild the database entirely using an export and import (after cleaning out the existing database in site B).
The question I have is efficiency, would I be better to just drop all the replication and start from scratch using the export?
Could I simply add the tables and columns to site B and rebuild the replication? Will I run into issues when I try to rebuild the replication if the job remains broken?
Or can I rebuild site B (after breaking the job) using the export, then rebuild all the replication groups and re-enable replication (I know the scn numbers need to align but I am not sure if it will cause issues with the pending replication in the queue once I break the job).
I am pretty much free to do what is needed (even though this is a production environment, the replication is not critical - I just cannot deny access to the master site for the users)
The "former" DBA did not understand replication apparently and I have inherited this mess, while I understand how to do most of the things in this situation, I am not so sure of the best (or fastest) way.
Forgot to mention the environment Oracle 11g R2 running on Linux (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS)
Message was edited by: MrOracle

There was a good discussion on the same subject in one of the oracle forum.
Q] I have an application where data is never deleted, I have just rebuilt an
index which was previously 4gb in size and its now 3gb in size. Can anybody
explain?
A1] The first thing that comes to mind is that (assuming what was taught
on the Oracle Fundementals and tuning course I went on with Oracle
University last year is true[1]) when an index leaf block that is not
the right most block is filled up the next entry to be put in results
in a 50-50 split, two blocks are created one containing the lower 50%
of the entries and the other containing the higher 50%, both half
full.. Assumign that the indexed field isn't an increasing key type
value (i.e. it is possible to insert a value that will be lower
(futher left) than an earlier value) that will mean that your index
leaf blocks will mostly be between 50% and 100% full. Assuming a
reasonably random distribution of data your average block would be
around 75% full (split the difference between 50% and 100%). When you
rebuild the index the blocks are (with the same caveat as above)
repacked to 100% (or upto PCTFREE, I forget which) full. this would
explain why the size of the index has changed to 75% of it's previous
value. The same amount of data, it's just packed more tightly.
I don't have a database to hand to check this but it does seem to fit
the situation and my reccollection of how I'm told Oracle handles
indexes.
Stephen
[1] I'm told, and have seen, that it's not always a given. Maybe
there's a conference paper in somone's future entitled something like
"Lies Oracle Told Me: The gap between training and reality"
A2] If you look at Stephens post, then a reduction from free space of 30% in the blocks to 10% in the blocks (assuming pctfree =3D 10), gives around 20% gain back or around 800m from a 4G index. This would fit in quite nicely with what you are observing.
Jaffar

Creative Cloud Student and Teacher Edition (one-year).* I purchased a year license.

It is now the second month and Indesign is asking for a client number and only offers me a trial where I have to pay again. Please help as I have already drafted a Conference paper for this week and cannot get into it.
[ email address removed by moderator ]

Refer to this:
Sign in or activation errors
For anything beyond that contact support directly by web chat.
Mylenium

Grid computing in Education

Hi all experts in Grid/utility computing.
I am doing some research for a conference paper I will be presenting in May 04 on Grid computing in the Education sector(university).
I was wondering if anyone may have some information on how grid computing can be used in a university teaching environment as a starting point for my research.
This can be in the form of papers,presentations,web links or case studies of universities who are using grid . Our your thoughts/views on how the university setting can maximise this new technology to support computing research and teaching.
Or may be we can start a discussion on the link with grid and the education sector. What lessons, problems,parallels, issues from businesses we can relate/compare to university sector.
Thanks for you help
C.Hamilton-Jones
Senior lecturer
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University,UK

OK I have also read that if I want to make grid computing I need following things.
1 Oracle databade 10g which provides computing
(Express Edition is a standalone databse such as Access but it has multithread and is used standard applications such us sample application in XE (shop,forums etc.) )
2 Oracle Application server but I don't know if I need it couse it can be useless if I've got database
3 Oracle Enterprise manager 10g Grid Control

OAUG Conference Paper Submission

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for