seven * Seven Springs Ski Resort.

several * after 5 meetings in cities (well Champaign-Urbana). Several things
* Agenda item #9: J. Aggarwal discussed the need for several officers.
* multiple. Robotics came from several societies rather than CS.
* possible to separate. PAMI is sponsored by several societies, but
* Several related items were then discussed:
* solely the Computer Society, Active group with several conferences
* the last TC newsletter. Several minor changes were made at the meeting.
7 for several.

shafer * #15. Announcement of "Physics-Based Vision Newsletter" (Shafer)
* (Shafer:)
* 1. The PAMI Society: S. Shafer
* Motion: Shafer: That we resolve that the EC of the PAMI TC
* Physics based vision (Shafer). There is space for 3 tracks.
* Shafer, Wolff, Healy, Nayar, Woodam, Tomanaga, xx. Initially
* Steve Shafer at CMU).
* TAB) other (Image database -- Mosaic). Steve Shafer:CV home page
8 for shafer.

shape * 7. Shape and Pattern Matching in Computational Biology Workshop:

shapiro * #6. Status on CVPR94 (Shapiro, Bowyer). Seattle, June 21-23, 4
* (L. Shapiro) Posters as not quite yet done and submitted as posters.
* 1. Membership Drive: L. Shapiro / R. Krishnan
* 1. Membership Results: R. Krishnan / L. Shapiro
* 2. 1994 Budget: L. Shapiro
* 2. 1995 Budget: L. Shapiro. The current budget is about $14.8K for 1996 $15K
* 3. PAMI Page in Computer Magazine: L. Shapiro
* 7:00 Linda Shapiro Chair.
* Agenda item #3: CAD-Based Vision June 2-3: (Linda Shapiro) 69 were
* Agenda Item #3: CVPR94, Linda Shapiro. The plans continue with the
* is as follows. Please send additional agenda items to Linda Shapiro,
* K. Bowyer and D. Goldgof (S. Tanimoto and L. Shapiro program chairs)
* Linda Shapiro. No. Nominations from the floor.
* Meeting called to order, by Linda Shapiro at 8:10
* Motion: (Linda Shapiro) To select NY in 1993 and Seattle in 1994 with
* shapiro@cs.washington.edu.
16 for shapiro.

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

shashua * b. Tel Aviv proposal: Yeshurun, Shashua, Weinshall, Edelman;

she * had been expected. The conference should have a small surplus. She

shedule * shedule).

sheraton * Agenda item #6: CVPR89 (R. Chellappa): At the Sheraton Grand

shifted * is a conflict and will be shifted.
* the production of all transactions was shifted from NJ (IEEE) to CA

ship * From: Continue, negotiate changes, jump ship, or beome society,

shirai * from Europe as the program chairs. [Y. Shirai reported that the assignment
* Shirai) was Yes:35, No: 22, Abstain 6, with a strong minority support for

short * expect about 300 papers submitted with 90 accepted (30 long, 60 short).
* proposals within 6 months or less. A short presentation for holding the
* Proposed to create a short list of US members that attend CVPR,
* short, 400 attended. Document analysis is fast moving and growing
* size of short papers be increased was passed: Yes 25, No 18, Abstain 6.
* submitted 35 long and 54 short papers accepted.
6 for short.

shorten * 10 issues). This accounts for some of the requests to shorten the

should * (AK:) should be sessions on Computer Vision and Image Processing and
*

showcase *

showed * publications) showed that PAMI was the highest of all Transactions.

shown * were poorly considered. (T. Binford) Quality is shown by innovation and

shurmann * Recognition J Shurmann (R Haralick).

signal * dates). There are 4 distinct tracks: Computer Architecture, Signal
* Signal
* Signal Processing). The Computer Society Board opposed the T-IP

signed * Draft a petitiion (and signed by over 100 people) to IEEE that we
* Meeting called to order at 8:36PM. 41 members signed in.
* Meeting called to order at 9:10PM. 79 members signed in.
* signed (Omni Park Central, NYC), the rates will be a bit higher than
* Week of June 16 Hotel Nikko. (Not signed yet, but that is the

signup * Discussion of mailing list form of membership database, signup,

similar * etc. (from 20 countires). The pattern is similar to ICCV87. Sent to 3
* Hawaii: 28. (similar support to St Thomas).
* similar to ICCV-2 (blind reviews, program committee, etc.), with the

since *

sinced * expenses were about $13.4K sinced it was budgeted at 55 people.

sincere * next possible meeting with the 94ProgComm making sincere effort.

singapore * c. Singapore proposal: Mital, Aggarwal, Ullman, Kittler
* conference) is in Singapore in 1995 and probably in Korea in 1997.

single * 160 papers. One issue to think about is the single track, which would
* 8. ICCV Single Track? E. Grimson. Eric raised the issue of how many
* conferences (each single track) run in parallel. IAPR is the sponsor,
* Doc anal, 1 on medical. Panel, single track.
* on a single day. Each was sent to 3 reviewers, a subcommittee of
* single track.
* The Call for Papers is out. The meeting is single track, planning for
7 for single.

site * that site).

size * (Nevatia) The basic issue is one of size -- PR/CV/IP -- and a
*

ski * Morning session, afternoon Ski, evening session. July 1 deadline.
* Seven Springs Ski Resort.

sklansky * (Bob Haralick, Jake Aggarwal, T. Huang and Jack Sklansky). The proposal
* and J. Sklansky was added as a US representative. J. Aggarwal was elected as

small * 60 attended and resulted in a small surplus.
* for later meetings. ICCV-2 was close to break even or a small loss.
* had been expected. The conference should have a small surplus. She
* program committee, with a small intersection with the previous year, and
* Q: Why just face recognition? Want to keep it small so just
* that. The number that attend both is small. Comment about the
6 for small.

smaller * US is a category C, (needs 800 members). With smaller number dues

societies * multiple. Robotics came from several societies rather than CS.
* possible to separate. PAMI is sponsored by several societies, but

society * IEEE Computer Society PAMI Technical Committee Meeting
* 1. The PAMI Society: S. Shafer
* 10. The PAMI Society: A. Kak
* AFIPS dissolved, the IEEE-Computer Society assumed responsibility
* Agenda item #16: New Business: Bobick discussed the Optical Society of
* allowed by the Computer Society. The question is wheather to charge
* be a separate society under IEEE.
* become a society (the officers).
* Bir: We should look at forming a PAMI society.
* Computer Society level rather than the PAMI-TC level. CAIA-89 may have
* Critical Mass for a society. Dues enough to cover expenses/.
* Discussion as to whether this is the list for the IAPR "society"
* 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
* From: Continue, negotiate changes, jump ship, or beome society,
* Issues with the computer society. Initially they wanted to budget
* Processing Society (Dave Munson) approached the Computer Society about a
* Ram: Not sure we have the critical mass to become a society, most
* Report on should we form a society. Issues from last year: PAMI
* Robotics and Automation Society left the Computer Society and has 4-5K
* Signal Processing). The Computer Society Board opposed the T-IP
* society and from PAMI.
* society.
* solely the Computer Society, Active group with several conferences
* the journal), such as a society or whatever.
* The office is filled by the IEEE Computer Society president on the
* The US needs a separate Society that has the power.
* We are almost a society now, the intellectual center is not
30 for society.

software * a Technical Committee). Software Engineering became a TCouncil, with
* travel money. Tsuji feels that implementations (hardware and software)

solely * solely the Computer Society, Active group with several conferences

solution * (Need an immediate solution.)

some * (ECCV, ICPR), a difficulty in determining what is different. Some
* (Freeman) Cultural problem, once a conference doesn't have some
* (Mulkagnar and Haralick), With the above meeting. 1-2 days, some
* 10 issues). This accounts for some of the requests to shorten the
* Agenda item #0: The minutes were approved after some discussion of whether
* A question regarding the weighting down of some reviewers since they
* because they don't fell that they will get a fair hearing (some
* bigger and have some of what we want. Current relationship is
* causing some of the backlog. There
* Comments: (J Mundy) Reminded that some past meetings with weak reviews
* conference chair and it fell behind. Some discussion of the budget
* deadline will be known soon and some attempt is being made to raise some
* deal with selectivity issues followed. Some of the highlights of the
* disscussion indicated some concern in the international representation
* does a 5 year annual purge (or some such).
* ftp.ads.com for access (there are some images already available from
* get papers from each of the 20 associate editors -- some effort to
* IEEE is recommending that all TCs have some structure that will make
* IEEE-CS members. The first review is usually in <6 months with some
* Linda: We do use some of the pieces, do we want to provide the
* original paper. There is some support for topical survey papers --
* Q: Some distinguished between context and domain speific (ie
* some as low as $45. Osaka is considerably cheaper than Tokyo. The
* some decisions.
* some discussion of a West Coast location, with no other suggestions at
* some emphasis on the fact that Pattern Recognition papers are acceptable. Need to
* some felt that CVPR had been too narrow and some feel that it is
* Some suggestion (from IEEE-CS) to have an executive committee and
* was requested. The allocation is 1/3 of the conference surplus plus some more
* were sent out for determining the Roberts award. There was also some
* You remember the Hawaii meeting and we could consider some resort
* you want other workshops get the ideas in. Some supported by the
34 for some.

someone * the fall of 1990 with someone from Japan as a co-chair, and add 7 more

something * Q: Motion to attempt to fix something, what is being fixed?
* something changes)? We don't distinguish, but take both.

somewhat * may reduce the attendance somewhat.

soon * deadline will be known soon and some attempt is being made to raise some

sould * the funding. Sould we investigate further?

sources * front money from various sources (Martin Marietta).

space * (less than Seattle, Boston, San Francisco). Dorm space is an issue, but
* expanding to a 5th track if space is available. Additional comments
* in Object Recognition; Multi-Dim medical analysis(F)) Still space
* Physics based vision (Shafer). There is space for 3 tracks.

speaking * (Joe) Roughly speaking, the use of information not involved with

special * database (7-10 sequences) and plans special sessions for experimental
* for special issues in AI, Search in Vision, probabilistic reasoning,
* Future special issues on Probabilistic Reasoning, Integration of
* with 1/3 of this past year taken by industrial vision special issues

specific * indicate more specific topics within Pattern Recognition (High dimensional

specifically * Motion: (Haralick) Specifically call out Image Processing and its subtopics

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

spend * Bir: Others spend on student scholarships.
* Linda: Not sure what to spend the money on, hard to get the people
* to spend the money on.

spie * be held there under IEEE-CS. It is now sponsored by SPIE and the Cosmos

sponsor * conferences (each single track) run in parallel. IAPR is the sponsor,

sponsored * be held there under IEEE-CS. It is now sponsored by SPIE and the Cosmos
* J. Mundy discussed 2 projects in a Common IU environment sponsored by
* possible to separate. PAMI is sponsored by several societies, but
* Q: Re IEEE sponsored vs private journal? PAMI 10K copies, no other
* Steering Committee: TSHuang, APentland, PStucki, sponsored by

sporting * Sporting Activities etc. are the types of ideas. Also tied to ARPA

spring * Agenda item #6: Workshop on Mathematical Morphology (Spring, Kentucky):
* review time. Spring 1992 issue on Computer Vision and Computer
* Seven Springs Ski Resort.

stable * America) even if ICCV is held and to get ICCV on a regular stable

staff * The CS has a paid staff of about 90 (most in publications areas),

standard * Howard Moraff (NSF) asked to maintain the high standards in the process.
* Item 12. Discussion of standards for papers, and conferences. (Tom
* with the standard blind reviewing process. 28 of the 43 committee

start * Amendment to start as electronic and keep in this form.

started * Avi started the discussion by presenting the basic issues:
* the US 4 members on the board. Then the discussion started of what

starting * Agenda item #2: ICPR 88 (H. Freeman): Moved to Rome Italy (starting

state * August 1995, Penn State.
* this. So state our goal and discuss the structure:

stated * Boykin stated that the CS policy was that proceedings would be
* Duplicate submissions -- policy is stated on the call for papers for
* requirement for new unpublished work already stated in the call for
* [Later, after the proposers stated that December 1997 would be

stating * current call includes a requirement for stating the differences
* more cheating by not stating that the paper is the same, that the

statistics * Performance vs. robustness. Applied statistics and others.

status * #6. Status on CVPR94 (Shapiro, Bowyer). Seattle, June 21-23, 4

stay * (which is cheaper to stay and get to). Puerto Rico? (St Thomas is

steering * Steering Committee: TSHuang, APentland, PStucki, sponsored by

steve * it more, the inform Steve.
* really want to have one. (Steve) At the moment we do not have the
* Steve Shafer at CMU).
* Steve: afraid that the number that would commit to the time is low.
* Steve: Discuss last year's proposal that we should reconsider
* Steve: If there are enough people who feel that we should look at
* Steve: Partly surplus and asking for more.
* Steve: R&A really was formed by the efforts of one person.
* TAB) other (Image database -- Mosaic). Steve Shafer:CV home page
9 for steve.

still * in Object Recognition; Multi-Dim medical analysis(F)) Still space
* Mundy, T. Strat, C. Thorpe, H. Freeman, Ikeuchi. (Still in planning,
* papers this allowed, but there was still strong support for the
* Q: Motion can lead to many papers? Still struggling over how to get
* still too narrow. Open discussion on whether it is broad enough.

stocastic * classification, stocastic, ...). One role of prog. comm. is to be

stockman * O. Camps, P. Flynn, G. Stockman (June 1996).

strange * requirement, but sent to a strange list. An electronic list was

strat * 3. Workshop on Context based Vision: J Mundy and T Strat June 1995
* Mundy, T. Strat, C. Thorpe, H. Freeman, Ikeuchi. (Still in planning,

strip * Mobius Strip.

strive * good -- this leads to multiple journals, etc. Strive for quality.

strong *

structure * Agenda item #6: Proposal for a workshop on three-dimensional structures
* conference. An issue is who is a member? and a structure of a
* fight the issue with IEEE. IEEE is not forcing structure on us,
* IEEE is recommending that all TCs have some structure that will make
* this. So state our goal and discuss the structure:
* Who are members for IAPR issues. We do not have a good structure of
6 for structure.

struggling * Q: Motion can lead to many papers? Still struggling over how to get

student * ($14,700), membership promotion, newsletter, students, travel (to
* 383 paid. Students 150 (In future look at these totals).
* Attendees were about evenly divided among members, students, and
* Bir: Others spend on student scholarships.
* expanded and changed a little. Student housing is at Columbia
* images used in papers to a data base), when to add since the student
* The conference has (currently) about 250 students, 230-250 members,
* unknown number of these are students. The original budget projection
8 for student.

study * Agenda item #8: E. Riseman gave the report on the study of holding ICCV-III
* Motion: That E. Riseman and R. Haralick study holding ICCV3 in Japan in

sub * size necessitated by the number of papers) meeting for all papers, sub

subcommittee * on a single day. Each was sent to 3 reviewers, a subcommittee of

subconference * Q: Definition of Pattern Recognition -- at ICPR the Pattern Recognition subconference. Desire to have

submission * #9. PAMI Transactions (Anil Jain) 1 submission per day, working
* 1. ICCV95: Eric Grimson. 600 submissions with about 450 arriving
* 3. PAMI Journal. Kasturi. So far in 1995, there are 220 submissions.
* 618 registered. The 1992 submission is a 2500 word abstract and will
* 70 people, desire for the meeting to continue. 90 submissions, 2 on
* 9. Double Submissions (CVPR, ICCV, etc). Little discussion, except that
* Motion: to have a separate track CVPR to encourage submission of
* Agenda Item #1: CVPR92, Narendra Ahuja. There were 357 submissions,
* and 70 posters. The submission included a summary page to aid the
* between the CVPR submission and other submissions, and the general
* do 3 reviews for all submissions. PAMI subscriptions have decreased
* Duplicate submissions -- policy is stated on the call for papers for
* introduced submissions in final form. This reduced greatly the
* mid-December submission deadline.
* Policy on Multiple submissions, should there be one, is there one, how
* program, it requires a comment on other submissions. The program
* reconsider the policy on duplicate submissions. (Keeping the
* registered, 18 or 30 submissions were accepted.
* submission is in the Final form -- 6 pages in final form and only 6
* submissions and then to request that they withdraw the paper from one
* submissions are at about 20-30 per month with about 12 papers in each
* submissions number about 450/year and get 3 reviews.
23 for submission.

submit * After more discussion about whether it is right or wrong to submit to

submitted * (L. Shapiro) Posters as not quite yet done and submitted as posters.
* 210 papers were submitted, expect about 40%-60%. This meeting
* broad and to draw in the papers, but good papers must be submitted.
* conference or separate track to make such papers be submitted.
* expect about 300 papers submitted with 90 accepted (30 long, 60 short).
* is that any papers submitted to both conferences (i.e. CVPR and ICCV)
* Kender and Worthy Martin for the program, 327 papers submitted (90
* papers as good. In this one Doc Anal had 2 submitted and 1 is in.
* papers submitted from 26 countries, 270 from
* papers submitted, 2 program committee reviewers, L. Davis, R. Jain and
* Recognition papers, but the ones submitted were bad.
* regarding the sudden change in ICPR from most submitted papers to
* rejection ratio. (T. Boult) Posters could be submitted as posters.
* submitted 35 long and 54 short papers accepted.
* submitted and have been sent to the program committee for review, with
* submitted, 44 accepted, + 2 invited. The income was about $20K, and the
* the policy in 1994 did not work. (Indicate it was submitted to
* There were 491 papers submitted, 2 reviewers for each paper with at
* were submitted and 3 reviewers will be used. About 35 are expected.
19 for submitted.

subscriber * Americal individual subscribers of PAMI, approximately 10K people. The
* it now goes to the entire PAMI subscriber list. J. Aggarwal
* looking into electronic versions. Library subscribers will get a
* the agreement that the newsletter would go to all PAMI subscribers, but

subscriptions * do 3 reviews for all submissions. PAMI subscriptions have decreased
* Q: Limits on PAMI pages? Really come from total subscriptions.
* transactions subscriptions are down around 10% each of the last

substantially * with substantially the same material by rejected automatically.

subtopics * Motion: (Haralick) Specifically call out Image Processing and its subtopics

success * an research centers. Deemed to be a success. There was a meeting
* The meeting ended with a thanks to Worthy, John and Rama for the success

successful * successful meeting at AAAI-90. Passed with no opposition.
* This follows the successful workshop in Maui (CVPR 91) and

such * Agenda item #11: ICCV (J. Aggarwal): Discussion of the need to hold such
* conference or separate track to make such papers be submitted.
* Discussion centered on how such a policy would be distributed since
* does a 5 year annual purge (or some such).
* the journal), such as a society or whatever.

sudden * regarding the sudden change in ICPR from most submitted papers to

suen * (ICDAR '95): C. Y. Suen
* (replacing C. Suen). The backlog has decreased due to the increased

suggest * Motion: (T. Pavlidis) To suggest an increase in the PR and CV tracks at

suggestion * Eric: Move Avi's suggestion:
* included a suggestion that
* some discussion of a West Coast location, with no other suggestions at
* Some suggestion (from IEEE-CS) to have an executive committee and

summary * and 70 posters. The submission included a summary page to aid the

sun * Allen Newell, Larry Roberts, King-Sun Fu.

sunday * conjunction with CVPR93 (Sunday/Monday). This is a follow up to a

support * Avi: R and A runs a big one without the support (but only that one).
* Feel for support (interest):
* Hawaii: 28. (similar support to St Thomas).
* original paper. There is some support for topical survey papers --
* papers this allowed, but there was still strong support for the
* Shirai) was Yes:35, No: 22, Abstain 6, with a strong minority support for
* support (e.g. IBM).
* support other meetings. CVPR generates maybe 10K surplus. Today
8 for support.

supported * you want other workshops get the ideas in. Some supported by the

sure * during the university school year, and the attempt to make sure that
* Linda: Not sure what to spend the money on, hard to get the people
* Ram: Not sure we have the critical mass to become a society, most

surplus * 60 attended and resulted in a small surplus.
* account limit of $30K at any one time. The surplus helps ease planning
* Agenda item #7: ICPR 1992: (Herb Freeman) 1990 ICPR had a surplus with
* budget to last year's surplus (35%) in conferences. We thus need to
* commented that the TC keeps a portion of any conference surplus with an
* had been expected. The conference should have a small surplus. She
* Steve: Partly surplus and asking for more.
* support other meetings. CVPR generates maybe 10K surplus. Today
* surplus. A large part is newsletters, but the editor was
* was a discussion of the net surplus from the transactions and the need
* was requested. The allocation is 1/3 of the conference surplus plus some more
11 for surplus.

survey * original paper. There is some support for topical survey papers --

sutdents * sutdents ($34/night).

symposium * 1. International Symposium on Computer Vision

system * (due to conflicts with schools on the quarter system).
* mathematical approaches of expert systems, etc. are desired. The
* Processing, Pattern Recognition Systems, and Computer Vision. A lot of
* transactions on Image Processing, Neural Networks, Fuzzy Systems. The