desired * mathematical approaches of expert systems, etc. are desired. The

detail * groups will go over papers in more detail. The review form is

determine * determine, then the papers are different), can we trust the authors.

determining * (ECCV, ICPR), a difficulty in determining what is different. Some
* Discussion centered on determining differences, who is responsible for
* were sent out for determining the Roberts award. There was also some

devote * not a lot of people that will devote the time and effort to do the

dictate * conferences, whether the TC should dictate conference format, and how to

did * #2 Discussion (Kak): did we broaden the scope? After the last one
* Comment: (Freeman) Point missed, did this group want to have an
* Q: did it not include good people (e.g. document image analysis --
* the most recent newsletter did not.
* the policy in 1994 did not work. (Indicate it was submitted to
* this meeting at 250 Eric wanted 450 and the CS finally did allow 350.
6 for did.

diego * in San Diego, June 6-8 with an AI and Computer vision Workshop (J.
* San Diego, CA

difference * a meeting (concentrating on the intended difference between ICCV and
* current call includes a requirement for stating the differences
* Discussion centered on determining differences, who is responsible for
* The rainy season is December/January, otherwise there is no difference

different * (ECCV, ICPR), a difficulty in determining what is different. Some
* can you tell if it is different (e.g. if it requires effort to
* continued. With possibly different alternatives for the future of
* determine, then the papers are different), can we trust the authors.
* Huang) This issue grows from concerns about the different meetings
* visce chairs from different countries.
6 for different.

difficulty * (ECCV, ICPR), a difficulty in determining what is different. Some

diluted * recognition not diluted by others. But expression may enter in.

dim * in Object Recognition; Multi-Dim medical analysis(F)) Still space

dimensional * #10. 1994 Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Biomedical Image Analysis
* Agenda item #6: Proposal for a workshop on three-dimensional structures
* indicate more specific topics within Pattern Recognition (High dimensional
* or multiple dimensional sensors (yes). Should it be multi-modal?

dimensions * dimensions are being confused (selectivity, topic area,

directions * directions by drawing on the best few papers for the other meetings

directly * mail the newsletter directly to the US membership list (whatever that

discuss * charging for extra pages (money goes to program committee). Discuss
* Steve: Discuss last year's proposal that we should reconsider
* this. So state our goal and discuss the structure:
* Time to discuss the issue for next meeting.

discussed * (Rosenfeld) Newsletter was discussed earlier, crazy mailing list
* Agenda item #16: New Business: Bobick discussed the Optical Society of
* Agenda item #9: J. Aggarwal discussed the need for several officers.
* discussed and a possible third review was done (20 to each member over 1
* J. Mundy discussed 2 projects in a Common IU environment sponsored by
* Several related items were then discussed:
* The issue of a treasurer was discussed in light of the possibility to
* the same time, which brought up the usual long discussed issues of
* with China. H. Freeman discussed the organizing problems. About 680
9 for discussed.

discussing * 3. CVPR 97. R Nevatia. Discussing 1997 seems early.
* CS is discussing a proceedings package for TC members (at low

discussion * #2 Discussion (Kak): did we broaden the scope? After the last one
* 9. Double Submissions (CVPR, ICCV, etc). Little discussion, except that
* Agenda item #0: The minutes were approved after some discussion of whether
* A discussion regarding dues for membership in the TC. This is now being
* After more discussion about whether it is right or wrong to submit to
* Agenda item #10: CVPR93 Proposals and discussion:
* Agenda item #11: ICCV (J. Aggarwal): Discussion of the need to hold such
* Agenda item #13: Conference guidelines (R. Haralick): Discussion of the
* areas covered, etc. A discussion of how to deal with these and how to
* Avi started the discussion by presenting the basic issues:
* balance. (Gerson commented on AIPR, heavily industrial.) Discussion
* bound to mail the newsletter to its members. After discussion
* By-laws discussion.
* changes based on discussions at this meeting (with regard to conference
* conference chair and it fell behind. Some discussion of the budget
* discussion are:
* Discussion as to whether this is the list for the IAPR "society"
* Discussion centered on determining differences, who is responsible for
* Discussion centered on how it would be interpreted, the
* Discussion centered on how such a policy would be distributed since
* Discussion centered on offending others (Europe, the US not attending
* discussion from item 7.) It is sent mostly due to the IAPR membership
* Discussion of mailing list form of membership database, signup,
* Discussion of making the move to become a society, we must move to
* discussion of the distribution by the Computer Society of the call for
* Discussion of the hotel costs, and possible dorm accomodations, and
* discussion of the lack of "AI" in PAMI, AI related conferences, name
* Discussion of who is a member of the TC (according to IEEE) the IEEE
* discussion of worry and how to deal with overlap of other conferences
* Discussion on dates of ICCV/CVPR and conflicts
* Discussion on paper topics not mentioned in the call (e.g. medical image
* discussion on what it means to broaden the meeting, but are the
* Discussion on who they would report to?
* Discussion that people will break this policy and to make rules
* discussion, it was withdrawn by the maker.
* discussion, many (all?)
* Discussion: General membership does not know what a TC is. There is
* Discussion: no way to have third track in the hotel in the Seattle
* Discussion: not wanting quotas, but the reviews were done by
* Discussion: the TC chair appoints all delegates, with nominal renewal every
* Discussions on Image data base, cam PAMI do anything (i.e. add the
* etc.) A balance of Industry, government and universities. Discussion
* feasible, discussions on international conferences should be held at
* Further discussion included why the meeting was scheduled so close to
* in Japan. He porposed, based on discussions with many people including
* initial filtering. Discussions included the nature of the conference,
* interest, can convert it to HTML. A discussion regarding paper or
* Issues for Discussion:
* Item 12. Discussion of standards for papers, and conferences. (Tom
* posters. A discussion on the roe of posters. Joe Mundy asked the
* Run by ICPR. Discussion of the 4th. 1996 in Germany, with various
* some discussion of a West Coast location, with no other suggestions at
* still too narrow. Open discussion on whether it is broad enough.
* Strong discussion. Joseph Boykin attended to present the Goode award
* The result of the discussion is that the executive committee of the PAMI
* the US 4 members on the board. Then the discussion started of what
* There is a Workshop on Motion every about 3 years. Discussion of Florida
* There was discussion that this should be deferred. The deferral
* Utah. A discussion followed:
* V. Issues for Discussion:
* was a discussion of the net surplus from the transactions and the need
61 for discussion.

disscussion * disscussion indicated some concern in the international representation

dissolved * AFIPS dissolved, the IEEE-Computer Society assumed responsibility

distinct * dates). There are 4 distinct tracks: Computer Architecture, Signal

distinguish * something changes)? We don't distinguish, but take both.

distinguished * Q: Some distinguished between context and domain speific (ie

distributed * Agenda item #10: The revised by-laws, distributed at ICCV-II, were
* Discussion centered on how such a policy would be distributed since

distribution * Agenda item #5: The current distribution of the IAPR newsletter will
* discussion of the distribution by the Computer Society of the call for

divided * Attendees were about evenly divided among members, students, and

doc * Doc anal, 1 on medical. Panel, single track.
* papers as good. In this one Doc Anal had 2 submitted and 1 is in.

document * 2. 2nd Document Analysis and Recognitin Conference: R. Haralick
* 4. Third International Conference on Document Analysis and
* 5. Fourth International Conference of Document Analysis and
* Agenda item #4: Document Processing Workshop, September 30: (Bob
* Computer Vision and document analysis. (Haralick) perspective on
* End of August. Really means: Document reognition. Calls for
* Haralick) It has become the First International Conference on Document
* Q: did it not include good people (e.g. document image analysis --
* short, 400 attended. Document analysis is fast moving and growing
9 for document.

does * (Grimson:) PAMI generates 300K for the CS, but does not get any
* Discussion: General membership does not know what a TC is. There is
* does a 5 year annual purge (or some such).
* IEEE does build in a cushion, so be careful and plan for this.
* is gone by the time the paper is published and the professor does not
* who does not. Problem of membership, who is a member, who is not?
* who is a member and who can vote. IEEE does not regard this as a
7 for does.

doesn't * (Freeman) Cultural problem, once a conference doesn't have some
* decision last year. Just because people want it doesn't mean it is

doing * in return, but it requires a lot of work for the people doing it.
* leave IEEE. All of these involve doing a lot of work, and there is

domain * Q: Some distinguished between context and domain speific (ie

dominate * mailing costs dominate at about $8K to $10K each. The IAPR newsletter
* Vision has increased to the point where Computer Vision dominates

don't * because they don't fell that they will get a fair hearing (some
* Problem is not the mailing list, but the problem is that we don't
* something changes)? We don't distinguish, but take both.

done * (L. Shapiro) Posters as not quite yet done and submitted as posters.
* can be done between meetings. There is a need for other meetings.
* discussed and a possible third review was done (20 to each member over 1
* Discussion: not wanting quotas, but the reviews were done by
* Done.
* For future meeting, if this is done, consider offering an extra
* only make hard decisions after the reviews have done most of the
* Service awards: We have given them, but we haven't done it lately
* Tanimoto comment, there are many things that can be done and are
9 for done.

dorm * (less than Seattle, Boston, San Francisco). Dorm space is an issue, but
* Discussion of the hotel costs, and possible dorm accomodations, and
* Eric noted that half of the 600 registered were in the dorm at MIT.

double * 9. Double Submissions (CVPR, ICCV, etc). Little discussion, except that
* reviewers, but it is not clear is it helped. [Comment on double blind

down * 2 year, PAMI is down about 7%.
* A question regarding the weighting down of some reviewers since they
* the least (all are down). Down 3%. Trans-C down 10% Possibility
* transactions subscriptions are down around 10% each of the last
6 for down.

downtown * at the International House (downtown). The review procedures will be

draft * Avi: Will draft a petition tonight for sending to IEEE.
* Draft a petitiion (and signed by over 100 people) to IEEE that we

draw * broad and to draw in the papers, but good papers must be submitted.

drawing * Anaysis. Character recognition, engineering drawings, and music are the
* directions by drawing on the best few papers for the other meetings

drive * 1. Membership Drive: L. Shapiro / R. Krishnan
* conferences is a terrible idea -- applications drive CV. More
* pressures to drive it.

drop * Vision. (i.e. drop Pattern Recognition from the name). Seconded (Shaprio).

dual * prohibition on dual publications.)

due * (due to conflicts with schools on the quarter system).
* (replacing C. Suen). The backlog has decreased due to the increased
* A discussion regarding dues for membership in the TC. This is now being
* Agenda item #9: ICCV93: Berlin (May?): Date not certain (partly due to
* between 1991 and 1992 was cut 40% due to the new formula that ties the
* Critical Mass for a society. Dues enough to cover expenses/.
* delayed (due to audience members, etc.). Complain to Anil if there
* discussion from item 7.) It is sent mostly due to the IAPR membership
* do not have dues, either dues for the TC or the Robotics with an
* extra $5 for dues.
* fewer members would mean (lower dues, fewer IAPR members).
* IEEE-CS generates about $300,000 from the Trans-PAMI (due to most of
* Maryland in January. Rather than the entire committee (due to the
* proposal due to the large overlap with PAMI. Al Bovik commented that
* raised the issue of the $1500 dues we pay to IAPR and the cost of
* Sizes PAMI currently 1200 (with no dues), R&A is 7000, CS is 100K.
* US is a category C, (needs 800 members). With smaller number dues
18 for due.

duly * Comments were duly noted by the organizers.

duplicate * Duplicate submissions -- policy is stated on the call for papers for
* reconsider the policy on duplicate submissions. (Keeping the

during * during the university school year, and the attempt to make sure that

dyer * #12. Proposal for a second Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision (Dyer).
* 1992. (Bir Bhanu) Program committee of D. Dyer and M. Herman, J.
* 2. CVPR96: K. Ikeuchi, B. Bhanu, C. Dyer
* C Dyer/Ikeuchi program chair, Bhanu as general chair.
* California (San Francisco) (return from 1995). Dyer/Ikeuchi as