Hi,
I’m free between 12 and 4pm on Friday and between 5 and 6:30pm
Best,
cathy
--
Dr Catherine Mulligan
Research Fellow
Co Director, Imperial College Centre for Cryptocurrency Research and Engineering
OASC Standardisation // oascities.org<http://oascities.org/>
Director and Co-Founder of Contextualised // http://www.contextualised.com/
+ 44 753 888 7477
c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk<mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk>
From: Lindsay Frost <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu<mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>>
Date: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 12:55
To: Juanjo Hierro <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>>, Cathy Mulligan <c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk<mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk>>, "gilles.privat at orange.com<mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>" <gilles.privat at orange.com<mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>>, Franck Le Gall <franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com<mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>>, "serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>" <serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>>, Martin Brynskov <martin.brynskov at oascities.org<mailto:martin.brynskov at oascities.org>>, CARLOS RALLI UCENDO <carlos.ralliucendo at telefonica.com<mailto:carlos.ralliucendo at telefonica.com>>, Seppo Haataja <seppo.haataja at oascities.org<mailto:seppo.haataja at oascities.org>>
Cc: "fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>" <fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>>
Subject: Agree on Friday 14.10.2016 in the afternoon : 16:30 ok for all to finalize CIM ISG Use Cases for ETSI ?
Dear all, who can attend a call on Friday 14.10.2016 to finalize the CIM Use Cases, to convince ETSI ?
Lindsay drafted v0.1 of a working text here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b52-J8uKiaO8mjrU8Rutw1-CG7AfF1Pc9vlGV8avMbM/edit#heading=h.ii7iznrlkpig
however there have been no other inputs. Surely you all know why you want to make a CIM, so please do not be shy!
Assuming there is more input by Friday, please enter your possible times below and reply-to-all so we can setup a GoToMeeting:
14th October
Lindsay
Juanjo
Cathy
Gilles
Franck
Martin
Carlos
Seppo
09:00
ok
maybe
10:00
ok
maybe
11:00
ok
maybe
12:00
ok
maybe
13:00
ok
maybe
14:00
ok
15:00
ok
16:00
ok
ok after 16:30
17:00
ok
ok
18:00
best wishes
Lindsay
________________________________________
Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734
NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014
From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2016 12:40
To: Lindsay Frost; Mulligan, Catherine E A; gilles.privat at orange.com<mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>; Franck Le Gall; serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>; Martin Brynskov; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; Seppo Haataja
Cc: fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
Subject: Re: Wrap-up and sync on next steps regarding the CIM ISG - NEXT CALLS on Tuesday 11.10 and Friday 14.10
Hi,
Unfortunately, there had not been too much progress on the CIM Use Case descriptions so I didn't setup the call as initially planned. So let's go for the confcall on Friday and try to a first draft of the description of the Use Cases finished by them.
Regarding time for the confcall, I would rather prefer sometime after 16:30 CET.
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
On 05/10/16 16:36, Lindsay Frost wrote:
Dear all,
I forgot to say that Juanjo will setup a call on Tuesday 11.10 to progress the CIM Use Cases summary:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b52-J8uKiaO8mjrU8Rutw1-CG7AfF1Pc9vlGV8avMbM/edit?usp=sharing
The goal is to have a presentation ready to share with ETSI on 18.10 (or even socialize it with oneM2M).
I will be away from office, back 12.10, and I will set up a call on Friday 14.10 to finalize the CIM Use Cases.
For Friday 14.10 any timeslot is free: please state your preference!
thanks,
Lindsay
________________________________________
Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734
NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014
From:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org> [mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org] On Behalf Of Lindsay Frost
Sent: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 21:32
To: Mulligan, Catherine E A; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; gilles.privat at orange.com<mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>; Franck Le Gall; serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>; Martin Brynskov; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; Seppo Haataja
Cc: fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] Wrap-up and sync on next steps regarding the CIM ISG - notes and conclusions today
Dear all,
anyone who was on the call might want to modify this, but my summary is as shown below.
Action items for us are:
>> EVERYONE PLEASE CONFIRM if 18th in afternoon is ok for a call with ETSI?
>> EVERYONE IS INVITED TO UPDATE googledoc "CIM Use Cases<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b52-J8uKiaO8mjrU8Rutw1-CG7AfF1Pc9vlGV8avMbM/edit?usp=sharing>" by 17.10.2016
>> consider if a presentation good enough for oneM2M can be made by 17.10.2016
See below for details:
(A) CIM call today: conclusions
(B) Agreed notes of ETSI DISCUSSION on 20160928 -- for your reference
(A) CIM call today: conclusions
1) all agreed that the API definition is essential, otherwise interworking cannot happen
2) set up another call with Hermann/Omar/Enrico (because we believe there is a strong
chance to convince them best strategy is "make ISG"
Email responses since 16:00 today say:
Hermann agrees: before 15h and after 17h on 18 October. the 20th would work AM and PM.
Enrico agrees: 18th and the 20th, much better in the afternoon
Omar agrees: Oct 18th in the afternoon would be ok, otherwise Oct 20th AM or PM
Conclusion: (1) 18th afternoon or (2) next best choice 20th afternoon
>> EVERYONE PLEASE CONFIRM if 18th afternoon is ok for a call with ETSI?
3) before talking with them again, make a convincing slideset of CIM Use Cases showing why IoT platform is not sufficient
>> EVERYONE IS INVITED TO UPDATE googledoc "CIM Use Cases<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b52-J8uKiaO8mjrU8Rutw1-CG7AfF1Pc9vlGV8avMbM/edit?usp=sharing>" by 17.10.2016
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b52-J8uKiaO8mjrU8Rutw1-CG7AfF1Pc9vlGV8avMbM/edit?usp=sharing
Note: the points are extracted from online notes made during the discussions today
Note: I think it is a good start :-)
4) consider if a presentation at next oneM2M f2f - or at least with selected individuals! - would help get people on our side
>> consider if a presentation good enough for oneM2M can be made by 17.10.2016
(B) Agreed notes of ETSI DISCUSSION on 20160928 -- for your reference
20160928 Notes on the teleconf with Hermann, Enrico, Omar re ISG CIM ToR
Present:
Hermann Brand (ETSI)
Omar Elloumi (oneM2M expert)
Enrico Scarrone (SmartM2M expert)
Juanjo Hierro
Lindsay Frost
Jose Manuel Cantera Fonseca
Gilles Privat
SUMMARY
Omar and Enrico judge, based on the outlined statement of work in the ToR, that there is a significant risk
of overlap with the oneM2M work, which ETSI has contracted not to do. Hermann and Omar and Enrico
feel also that a significant PART of the work is clearly NOT overlapping, so one suggestion is to progress those
areas first. It was emphasized that this is a technical judgement, and the actual decision is in the hands of the
ETSI director general.
Lindsay summarized (and the others agreed) that their view is:
- it is NOT overlapping to
a) do a gap analysis
b) consider what context information needs to be managed
c) define requirements on the exchange of that CIM info (maybe re security, interoperability to open standards ,etc)
d) propose data models for smart cities or more generally
e) define capabilities within a CIM system (types of queries, handling inconsistency, etc etc)
- it IS considered a risk of overlapping with oneM2M to
f) propose a specific protocol for communicating the context information
g) propose a communication API and architecture
- it is DEFINITELY an overlap to
h) propose a protocol and API which could handle some of the same use cases as oneM2M,
especially if information is exchanged about the most recent status of entities (devices)
On the other hand, Juanjo emphasized that ETSI may be accepting an enormous constraint if it avoids
any work in future which could under some circumstances handle the same use cases as oneM2M.
There is currently no standard for Context Information Management and Europe could be the leader.
However if ETSI put it out of scope, and oneM2M does not do it, then what will happen?
Lindsay argued that an ISG has unique advantages in allowing stakeholders from smart cities and from
system integration projects to contribute, which is not at all common in the "big SDOs". There was some
discussion at the end about socializing the idea of the ISG CIM towards oneM2M and SmartM2M.
All sides agreed to consider the issues, and the clarifications given, and to make contact again next week.
DISCUSSION NOTES:
Hermann:
- the EC wants to avoid fragmentation, and to see positive results of public investments in ETSI and in FIWARE
Enrico:
- ETSI is bound _not_ to fragment the activities of oneM2M
- I was not informed of this extension of FIWARE work, which goes far beyond its original mission as I knew it, so I have no background
- the PPP agreement with oneM2M was designed to simplify interworking, but this CIM is partly overlapping I feel
Lindsay:
- do you think oneM2M would be able to cover the same topics inside the next year? Would it really be something oneM2M would handle?
Enrico:
- ngsi is one problem, as a separate protocol which has some of the same capabilities as Mca, it could enable similar solutions
- the figure in the CIM proposal shows it is designed to be a parallel platform, capable to handle similar tasks to oneM2M
- it would be needed to avoid that it works as a parallel solution to oneM2M, so that it does not overlap
- otherwise ETSI would be violating the PPP agreement
Lindsay: I am trying to understand the cause of the unhappiness
Juanjo
- we tried from the beginning to show that it is independent of IoT platforms, complementary
Omar
- Enrico and I were asked formally in September by ETSI to provide advice, not to make decisions
- please understand that we try to see, from the ToR material (which is only an outline) if there is a
potential overlap with other TCs or with oneM2M
- from the ToR there are two parts in my view:
(1)
- working on data models for smart cities is perfectly fine
- but you must dissociate the data models from the protocol! otherwise it overlaps with oneM2M
(2)
- you have an IoT broker looking at MQQT, etc
- we see the specifications for those are mainly in open source
- the Broker which is consuming the data should not be part of a specific system
which acts as a communication platform ... otherwise it is duplicating/overlapping oneM2M
Juanjo
- so you are saying if a Smart City exports data, it should be over a oneM2M protocol?
Omar
- no, no, I never said that
Fonseca
- what about when smart cities exchange info which is not about IoT?
e.g. databases producing/consuming messages
e.g. when the IoT is hidden so the data is only available from a cloud
- is there an overlap then?
Omar
- if you can cover both iot and non-iot use cases with the _same_ API then there is overlap of capability
Juanjo
- so it is not allowed to send data except using oneM2M? You say that is not your point, so let me clarify:
- a city has a rubbish bin which is overflowing, in a street, which is photographed by a citizen, who creates a "ticket"
- this creates a context: location, citizen, trouble type (rubbish) .... which the city wants to export
- this is an example of real-time open data
- this is an example totally outside oneM2M
Hermann
- the figure in the ToR shows the CIM layer as a general-purpose integration
- so could it be used as a general platform as far as I understand
Juanjo
- it just does context information management ... more focussed
Omar
- what about reading a temperature? then it could be done by both systems
- just looking at the figure it looks like there is overlap
- my proposal is the ToR should start with the uncontroversial parts
a) not overlapping: data models
b) overlapping: open data import/export on a specific protocol, able to include recent/fresh device data
Enrico
- SmartM2M is also working on SAREF data models, so need to synchronize when feasible
- but this is not blocking, just need to consider
Lindsay
- turn the questions around: someone has to define the real-time protocol for exchange of context info
- if oneM2M can do it, then you are saying CIM should use that oneM2M protocol?
- if oneM2M can not handle the CIM requirements, then would oneM2M update their protocol to fit?
Enrico
- real-time is a difficult issue, (... some explanation ...)
Lindsay
- the concern seems to be the protocol and (no) using oneM2M as the communication platform
- as a workaround, would you say sending context info as a "blob" through oneM2M would be a good use or a MISUSE of oneM2m?
Omar
- it is a valid use
- there might be improved means based on recent semantic annotation, but the "blob" approach is allowed
Juanjo
- this is a bit far away from the reason for starting a CIM
- we started it because there is no current standard for exchanging context information, abstracting out the source of the info
- there is a big opportunity for Europe in setting such standards
- I am surprized that the last six months of discussion has come to this blocking point
- the protocol aspect is one part of the work only, but an important part, it cannot just be left out
Enrico
- the current problem is that it seems there is overlap between the goals of Juanjo's point and the current work of oneM2M
Omar
- Enrico and I see that there could be overlap, and we have to say that. The decision is by Director General in consultation with ETSI Board
Juanjo
- we do not share that view of overlapping. You could say the same about TCP and IP. Someone might build solutions using IP, and
someone else would use TCP for different purposes, even if it does use IP. Would you say that definition of TCP solutions should be forbidden?
Lindsay
- let me return to a point: one reason I have for supporting a ISG is that it is perceived to have a lower barrier to entry for smaller stakeholders
- I really do not believe that smart city or small integrator companies would sign up as oneM2M or SmartM2M members
- yes, they could visit oneM2M meetings a few times as Guests ... but guests have no right to include material in specifications
- if oneM2M had an ISG concept we could consider going for that, but it does not
Omar
- smart cities are not usually interested in standards. at most they send a guy from a Uni
- even for the ISG it is doubtful how many or how often they could attend
Hermann
- I confirm a strong interest in ETSI to see a CIM specification
- we could set up a more phased approach, starting with an ISG (with lower barriers to entry for smaller stakeholders)
- there could be a decision point and review meeting at the end of the planned gap analysis, where the work should continue
Omar
- look at the ToR
- there is no overlap regarding data models, as I see it
- the overlap is publishing or consumption of "last data" from devices
Enrico
- if we can understand what is feasible without overlapping, that would be a big help
(Juanjo had to leave the call)
Omar ... you might consider to rearrange your work areas: first (2), (3), (4) ... then have a yes/no to finalize (1) //see copied text from page 6//
1) Definition of a standard API for Context Information Management (CIM-API) enabling close to real-time update and access to information coming from many different sources (IoT but not only IoT). Such an API will enable applications to perform updates on context, register context providers which can be queried to get updates on context, query information on current and historic context information and subscribe for receiving notifications on context changes.
2) Specifications to be fulfilled by Data Publication Platforms supporting open data publication, data privacy and/or authorization of access, including enablers for multi-party access contracts will be considered.
3) Cross-domain Context Information Models that will deal with the definition of the models that are common to several of the domains being targeted, together with the metamodels, definition languages and processes needed for the specification, curation, publication and evolution of Context Information models will be defined and applied.
4) Smart Cities Information Models, where the specific models for the Smart Cities domain will be defined.
5) Information Models targeting other specific domains besides Smart Cities (for example but not limited to Smart Agrifood, Smart Industry) will also be considered.
Enrico
- work could even be in parallel as long as (1) was not finalized without clear understanding how it is not overlapping oneM2m
Lindsay
- I like to summarize the issue where overlapping is seen to be a risk:
- it is NOT overlapping to
a) do a gap analysis
b) consider what context information needs to be managed
c) define requirements on the exchange of that CIM info (maybe re security, interoperability to open standards ,etc)
d) propose data models for smart cities or more generally
e) define capabilities within a CIM system (types of queries, handling inconsistency, etc etc)
- it IS considered a risk of overlapping with oneM2M to
f) propose a specific protocol for communicating the context information
g) propose a communication API and architecture
- it is DEFINITELY an overlap to
h) propose a protocol and API which could handle some of the same use cases as oneM2M,
especially if information is exchanged about the most recent status of entities (devices)
Enrico, Hermann, Omar: correct
Lindsay
- unfortunately not so many people/delegates know about the ideas for the CIM, and I understand
all of you have felt bound by ETSI confidentiality not to discuss it in your company etc
- the confidentiality of the discussions has been limiting the socializing the idea of starting a ISG
- would it be ok to create a powerpoint and somehow contribute to SmartM2M or oneM2M ?
- I do not want that it looks like we are trying to "go public" and put pressure on ETSI re a decision
Hermann: hmmm
Enrico, Omar: no problem from our SDO viewpoints
Omar: it would also help within ETSI if you could get several individual Smart Cities to sign as founding members
Lindsay
- I will ask within the founding members
- I will send notes of the discussion
________________________________________
Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734
NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014
From: Mulligan, Catherine E A [mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 15:08
To: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>; Lindsay Frost; gilles.privat at orange.com<mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>; Franck Le Gall; serge.raes at orange.com<mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>; Martin Brynskov; CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; Seppo Haataja
Subject: Re: Wrap-up and sync on next steps regarding the CIM ISG
Hi all,
I don't seem able to connect... I'll keep trying...
In case I don't get in can I suggest that Lindsay's approach is good.
Can we create the ISG and perform the gap analysis during its initial stages?
My thoughts are onem2m don't want anything g to do with this they just haven't realised it yet.
Best,
Cathy
Skaffa Outlook för Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:06 PM +0100, "JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA" <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Lindsay sent a GoToMeeting bridge. I forward it again, just in case.
Best regards,
— Juanjo
Dear all, on request of Juanjo I arrange this GoTo.
1. Please join my meeting, Tuesday, October 04, 2016 at 14:30 W. Europe Daylight Time.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/835522077
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20161012/d9127fb6/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy