Martin/Anna/Bram/Sebastien Can we have at 5CET a final review of the latest proposal together so we can decide about which parts to cut to get the required 70 pages together and identify outstanding gaps in Section 3? How is section 4-5 coming along? Can we have gap analysis as well for this? Our ambition should be to have all part ready for submission by midnight Regards Alex From: Ana Garcia <ana.garcia at enoll.org<mailto:ana.garcia at enoll.org>> Date: Monday, 11 April 2016 15:12 To: "Fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities at lists.fiware.org>" <Fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities at lists.fiware.org>>, Sébastien Ziegler <sziegler at mandint.org<mailto:sziegler at mandint.org>>, Nuria De-Lama Sanchez <nuria.delama at atos.net<mailto:nuria.delama at atos.net>> Cc: Alex Gluhak <alex.gluhak at digicatapult.org.uk<mailto:alex.gluhak at digicatapult.org.uk>>, Presser Mirko <mirko.presser at alexandra.dk<mailto:mirko.presser at alexandra.dk>>, Martin Brynskov <brynskov at cavi.au.dk<mailto:brynskov at cavi.au.dk>> Subject: Section 2.1 and 2.2 update Dear all, on behalf of Mirko. Status of section 2 and actions. 2.1 There are some concerns of the great ambition in the first table of section 2. (COMMENTS??) BRAM – please look at 2.1.1 point 5 – this can be much better: User acceptance validation addressing privacy, security, vulnerability, liability, identification of user needs, concerns and expectations of the IoT solutions. SEBASTIEN – please look at 2.1.1 point 6 – this needs to be aligned and referenced to section 2.2: Significant and measureable contribution to standards or pre-normative activities in the pilots' areas of action via the implementation of open platforms. MARGARIDA – please look at 2.1.1 point 7 – this needs some more specifics maybe – can you think of how to handle this? Can we provide things like save 1 hour time like the Helsinki text says? Improvement of citizens' quality of life, in the public and private spheres, in terms of autonomy, convenience and comfort, participatory approaches, health and lifestyle, and access to services. NURIA – please look at 2.1.1 point 8 – this can be improved with some material form FIWARE maybe?: Creation of opportunities for entrepreneurs by promoting new market openings, providing access to valuable datasets and direct interactions with users, expanding local businesses to European scale, etc. SERGIO – please look at 2.1.1 point 9 – this needs an industrial context. Development of secure and sustainable European IoT ecosystems and contribution to IoT infrastructures viable beyond the duration of the Pilot. Please run through the cities and shorten, sharpen the text. What is the IMPACT for the city. Eindhoven – REMCO Helsinki – ROOPE Porto – MARGARIDA Santander – LUIS Carouge – SEBASTIEN 2 .2 Major changes from previous version: collaboration with other LSPs and other initiatives added (in alignment with 1.2.4, very much reduced and adapted to the section), comments sent via email addressed, shuffled and reduced of some texts, formatting. I move all references at the end. TODO Sebastien and Nuria, please read through the section and provide final comments Nuria, check references are correct ([1] and[2], there were a few inconsistencies in the text I had) Industrial partners: Review IPR section and let me know if comments (it might need to be reduced a bit) ALL: If time add events to the list we are half a page above the 20 pag limit Best, Ana García Director ENoLL ivzw | Pleinlaan 9 | 1050 Brussels | Belgium | www.openlivinglabs.eu<http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/> T: | F: +32 2 629 16 13 | M: +32 470 19 3118 @openlivinglabs | @RoblesAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities/attachments/20160411/9c9716f8/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy