From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 3 11:21:50 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:21:50 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] candidatures for AB Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA08242C@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear PCC Just to inform you we have received no candidatures so far for the post of second AB member, as agreed in the PCC audio conference https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/693/FI-WARE+Minutes12-12-11.docx We have asked Thomas for more details, but we have received no news yet. In any case, the process is open and certainly we would like to see whether we have candidatures. A decision should be taken asap on this issue Just send a short CV with the candidate's proposal (3-4 lines is enough) BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Tue Jan 3 11:36:13 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:36:13 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] candidatures for AB In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA08242C@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA08242C@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Dear Jose, Process-wise, haven't we agreed that you and/or Juanjo will first send an official 'call' for candidates, specifying the job description, and only then companies will come back with candidates? Or maybe I missed something.. Regards, Alex From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" Date: 03/01/2012 12:26 PM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] candidatures for AB Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear PCC Just to inform you we have received no candidatures so far for the post of second AB member, as agreed in the PCC audio conference https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/693/FI-WARE+Minutes12-12-11.docx We have asked Thomas for more details, but we have received no news yet. In any case, the process is open and certainly we would like to see whether we have candidatures. A decision should be taken asap on this issue Just send a short CV with the candidate?s proposal (3-4 lines is enough) BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Thu Jan 5 15:40:29 2012 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:40:29 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA93224BF225B@PALLENE.office.hd> Dear colleagues in FI-Ware, welcome into 2012 A.D. ! Another year, another set of deadlines ... In the last email of Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena from 2011, there was a request to provide information for the FI-Ware standardization plan. I am tasked with filling in the relevant deliverable by the end of January - about 3 weeks from now. So far there is nearly nothing new to say, compared to the broad remarks given one year ago in applying for the project. I am sure this is not the impression you want to give to the EC about your organization... To make contributing a bit easier, I drafted the attached SHORT input formula. Could you please make sure your organization fills in Page 2 and returns it to me by Friday 13th January ? Thank you Lindsay Frost PS: if you are not the proper contact in your organization for this topic, please send me the correct email address and I will bother them instead ;-) _____________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. NEC Laboratories Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. NEC Europe Ltd, Reg. England, VAT DE161569151 frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 __________________________________ From: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena [mailto:juan.bareno at atosresearch.eu] Sent: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 13:43 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs Subject: WP11-Explotation Summary and Next Steps Dear Colleagues Please find here enclosed a initial presentation of what business issues regarding FI WARE have to be discussed to agree on a common message about FI WARE market positioning and the IPRs and Standardization activities management Additionally you can find the templates to fulfill aiming to obtain the exploitation and standardization issues feedback from each partner: - Exploitation: o Individual exploitation plan- by partner (Form 1) o Domain exploitation plan- by WPL (Form 2) - Standardization o Standardization Report- by WPL o Excel with main contacts- by partner Please review the presentation and send feedback and fulfill the templates accordingly I take advantage of this email to wish you all a very nice Christmas and a Happy New Year Br Juan Next week we will circulate a first commercial draft brochure Juan Bare?o Global Innovation, Business Development & Strategy Research & Innovation T +34 912148859 juan.bareno at atos.net Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atos.net www.atosresearch.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input_Request_Form_for_Standardisation_Plan_20120105.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 271103 bytes Desc: Input_Request_Form_for_Standardisation_Plan_20120105.docx URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Tue Jan 10 14:55:07 2012 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:55:07 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Support letter for FP7 Call 8 Project called OPTET (new demand) Message-ID: <20445_1326203713_4F0C4341_20445_8302_1_5499d0c0-d8c3-4d26-9ff4-a00539e2a37c@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> Dear Jose, I'm contacting you to call for a support letter from FI-WARE regarding a project called OPTET (OPerational Trustworthiness Enabling Technologies) we Thales instruct (with some other FI-WARE partners) and will submit to FP7 Call 8. In order for you to make your decision with support of other PCC members in cc of this email, you will find hereafter a short textual description of the OPTET Project and its relationship alignment with FI-WARE. Many thanks in advance for your prompt answer to my demand. Hearing from you. Best Regards, Pascal Project Name -OPTET, Integrated Project, targeting Objective 1.4 in Call 8. Partners - Thales (coord.), SAP, UDE, IBM-Haifa, UoS, SINTEF, ATC, .... Topics: 1.4a Heterogeneous networked, service and computing environments.(major) 1.4c Data policy, governance and socio-economic ecosystems.(minor) Descriptive text from proposal The OPTET project plans through a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach to identify and address the drivers of trust and confidence also fight against its erosion (especially true on the Internet or Cloud). Focus of this project is on socio-technical systems connected to the Internet. The resulting technologies enabling trustworthiness would be verified on two distinct existing execution platforms to demonstrate genericity of OPTET outcomes. Potential of OPTET results will be demonstrated and evaluated in the context of two operational use cases one in the domain of Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) and second Cyber Crisis Management. Overall, the OPTET project will significantly increase the trustworthiness of IT and Services and thus strengthen the competitiveness of the European software and service industry. In doing so OPTET will provide a powerful foundation for designing and developing trustworthy system/services/apps stakeholders can trust (since provable also guaranteed) for the future internet realizing its promises. Relationship and Alignment with FI-Ware This project aims at complementing the work already engaged in FI-WARE with respect to trust enablement. This going far beyond what FI-WARE will (could) do on those aspects. In OPTET we will consider FI-WARE testbed platform as one execution platform to consider to deploy and verify Trustworthiness enabling technologies (focus would be here on Trustworthiness Generic Enablers the way FI-WARE defined GE). Any of the FI-PPP Use Case project could make use of the OPTET trustworthiness since made available to FI-WARE platform The OPTET project is leaded by Thales (in charge of Security in FI-WARE) and some other partners in FI-WARE (SAP, IBM, UDE, ...) are also in OPTET which is clearly in favor to end up with results (assets) we could value in FI-WARE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 11 16:36:20 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:36:20 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Fwd: Possible involvement in Fi-WARE Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082882@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear all Please find attached Thomas response to the possibility of being involved in the AB team Comments are welcomed BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 -----Mensaje original----- De: Thomas Michael Bohnert [mailto:thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 11 de enero de 2012 15:09 Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA CC: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Asunto: Re: Fwd: [Fiware-pcc] Possible involvement in Fi-WARE Dear Jose, Juanjo, Upfront, many thanks for your efforts in reviewing possibilities to keep me involved in FI-WARE. This is much appreciated. It appears that the very first question to be answered is about availability in general. Here I'd like to point the readers to the unequivocal mission of academia, which is to conduct research. This is supported by respective university policies, one of which defines the relation between "research and teaching" as an individual aspect. In the particular case of ZHAW this is implemented by providing liberty to professors for setting their individual emphasis. In my individual case, this is clearly dedicated to research, evidenced by the fact that I decided to not take any teaching assignment for the time being (2012). Anything beyond will be defined on a case by case basis, year by year, between the department and the professor/myself. Now about the second, and most likely more crucial aspect. The funding. Based on my experience with that role, the established configuration, and the recent stakeholder concerns associated with this discussion I tried to find a compromise that should assure continuity, which was the prime concern driving this proposal, while at same time being the least invasive to the established resource distribution in FI-WARE. I therefore suggest to dedicate "on average one day per week, that is ~1/5 FTE" Rationale is that this assignment should be dedicated to representing FI-WARE in the FI-PPP AB, covering all tasks explicitly associated with the AB plus some rather minor but necessary involvement in FI-WARE internal technical coordination in order to stay informed appropriately. It would also mean that the technical coordination of FI-WARE would be split across potentially three persons and thus improve scalability. A final aspect is that this is in absolutely no conflict with my current and future assignments at ZHAW, and this even if I would intent to change the current split between teaching and research in the future. Financially, this translates into - 115000 Euro *funding* for the *entire* project, including travel. Some comments: - This appears to me like a reasonable number, equivalent to ~8PM of a big industry players. - It should therefore have little to nearly no impact on the budget sheet of FI-WARE or an individual partner. - Immediate availability is granted and should therefore remove any risk imposed by the current situation but instead guarantee continuity - Extending the technical coordination team by one person would further lower the workload and thus also the risk of single-point-of-failure, as pointed out by the EC/reviewers - The proposed split of responsibilities will allow to focus on the particular roles/tasks and thus reduce overhead and streamline technical management One valid conclusion is hence, that for a minor financial effort all concerns brought up in the last weeks could be addressed. I would be delighted to see that this constructive proposal finds equally constructive support and thus supports the greater well-being of FI-WARE. Best - Thomas P.S. I wish all the FI-WARE people a successful 2012! On 01/03/2012 10:28 AM, Juanjo Hierro wrote: > Thomas, > > This is a friendly reminder on the request that Jose Jimenez sent to > you on Dec 12, regarding continuity of your activities in FI-WARE. > Please try to answer it asap so that we can find out whether you are > interested or not. > > As indicated, one piece of info that we need would be the yearly > funding that would be required to cover your involvement. May be you > want to provide different funding figures depending on the formula we may adopt: > > 1. Participate as subcontractor by some partner (typically, TID or > SAP) 2. Participate as partner through amendment in the proposal, with > budget that would be funded 75% > > Looking forward your response or comments. > > Best regards, > > ------------- > Juanjo Hierro > > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital > email: jhierro at tid.es > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Possible involvement in Fi-WARE > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:19:45 +0100 > From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > To: 'Bohnert, Thomas Michael' > > > CC: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' > > > > Dear Thomas > > During today's PCC meeting it has been agreed we should ask you > formally whether, in your new position, you can devote the required > time to continue being member of the Architecture Board. > > As you know, the AB is a demanding activity that requires frequent > travels and a significant time for completing activities. > > Could you inform us, in the maximum detail, how would you see your > involvement in the task? What guarantees can you provide (or the new > organization you are going to work for) that you will be able to > devote the necessary effort? > > We would also need to know details about the cost per Person Month > that you would apply. > > Best regards > ---- > > Jose Jimenez > Telefonica I+D > jimenez at tid.es > tf +34 91 4832660 > > > > ________________________________ > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico > en el enlace situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > > ________________________________ > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico > en el enlace situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > -- Thomas Michael Bohnert Zurich University of Applied Sciences Institute of Information Technology mailto: thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch www: http://tmb.nginet.de twitter: tmbohnert Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: thomas_bohnert.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 613 bytes Desc: thomas_bohnert.vcf URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 12 09:03:31 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:03:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Support letter for FP7 Call 8 Project called OPTET (new demand) In-Reply-To: <20445_1326203713_4F0C4341_20445_8302_1_5499d0c0-d8c3-4d26-9ff4-a00539e2a37c@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> References: <20445_1326203713_4F0C4341_20445_8302_1_5499d0c0-d8c3-4d26-9ff4-a00539e2a37c@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA0828EE@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear PCC I've seen no reaction to Pascal request. Can we consider you approve?. Would you make any changes in the proposed letter? BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: martes, 10 de enero de 2012 14:55 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal; GIDOIN Daniel; LELEU Philippe; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Asunto: Support letter for FP7 Call 8 Project called OPTET (new demand) Dear Jose, I'm contacting you to call for a support letter from FI-WARE regarding a project called OPTET (OPerational Trustworthiness Enabling Technologies) we Thales instruct (with some other FI-WARE partners) and will submit to FP7 Call 8. In order for you to make your decision with support of other PCC members in cc of this email, you will find hereafter a short textual description of the OPTET Project and its relationship alignment with FI-WARE. Many thanks in advance for your prompt answer to my demand. Hearing from you. Best Regards, Pascal Project Name -OPTET, Integrated Project, targeting Objective 1.4 in Call 8. Partners - Thales (coord.), SAP, UDE, IBM-Haifa, UoS, SINTEF, ATC, .... Topics: 1.4a Heterogeneous networked, service and computing environments.(major) 1.4c Data policy, governance and socio-economic ecosystems.(minor) Descriptive text from proposal The OPTET project plans through a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach to identify and address the drivers of trust and confidence also fight against its erosion (especially true on the Internet or Cloud). Focus of this project is on socio-technical systems connected to the Internet. The resulting technologies enabling trustworthiness would be verified on two distinct existing execution platforms to demonstrate genericity of OPTET outcomes. Potential of OPTET results will be demonstrated and evaluated in the context of two operational use cases one in the domain of Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) and second Cyber Crisis Management. Overall, the OPTET project will significantly increase the trustworthiness of IT and Services and thus strengthen the competitiveness of the European software and service industry. In doing so OPTET will provide a powerful foundation for designing and developing trustworthy system/services/apps stakeholders can trust (since provable also guaranteed) for the future internet realizing its promises. Relationship and Alignment with FI-Ware This project aims at complementing the work already engaged in FI-WARE with respect to trust enablement. This going far beyond what FI-WARE will (could) do on those aspects. In OPTET we will consider FI-WARE testbed platform as one execution platform to consider to deploy and verify Trustworthiness enabling technologies (focus would be here on Trustworthiness Generic Enablers the way FI-WARE defined GE). Any of the FI-PPP Use Case project could make use of the OPTET trustworthiness since made available to FI-WARE platform The OPTET project is leaded by Thales (in charge of Security in FI-WARE) and some other partners in FI-WARE (SAP, IBM, UDE, ...) are also in OPTET which is clearly in favor to end up with results (assets) we could value in FI-WARE. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 12 16:51:58 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:51:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear PCC We have also received request form these projects to become part of the "community" using our results. We have prepared also support letters. Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make questions or require further details we should ask them In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers. In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: amplifire.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31196 bytes Desc: amplifire.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TRISTAN Letter of Interest FI-WARE v4 (3).doc Type: application/msword Size: 40960 bytes Desc: TRISTAN Letter of Interest FI-WARE v4 (3).doc URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Thu Jan 12 17:30:22 2012 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:30:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Dear Jose, basically I have no objections to support these proposals, however I'd like to have at least a short description of what they are going to propose in relationship to FI-WARE. Did you receive some input you can share among us? Meanwhile, I do agree with the support letter for the OPTET proposal. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: gioved? 12 gennaio 2012 16:52 A: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters Dear PCC We have also received request form these projects to become part of the "community" using our results. We have prepared also support letters. Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make questions or require further details we should ask them In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers. In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Thu Jan 12 18:07:10 2012 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:07:10 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Support letter for FP7 Call 8 Project called OPTET (new demand) In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA0828EE@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <20445_1326203713_4F0C4341_20445_8302_1_5499d0c0-d8c3-4d26-9ff4-a00539e2a37c@THSONEA01HUB01P.one.grp> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA0828EE@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: dear jose, i read it alsready and seems ok. if possible i'd ask pascal a closer formulation to the statements already agreed with yaron. ciao, stefano 2012/1/12 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC > > > > I?ve seen no reaction to Pascal request. Can we consider you approve?. Would > you make any changes in the proposed letter? > > > > BR > > > > > > ---- > > > > Jose Jimenez > > Telefonica? I+D > > jimenez at tid.es > > tf +34 91 4832660 > > > > > > De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] > Enviado el: martes, 10 de enero de 2012 14:55 > Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal; GIDOIN > Daniel; LELEU Philippe; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > Asunto: Support letter for FP7 Call 8 Project called OPTET (new demand) > > > > Dear Jose, > > > > I?m contacting you to call for a support letter from FI-WARE regarding a > project called OPTET (OPerational Trustworthiness Enabling Technologies) we > Thales instruct (with some other FI-WARE partners) and will submit to FP7 > Call 8. > > > > In order for you to make your decision with support of other PCC members in > cc of this email, you will find hereafter a short textual description of the > OPTET Project and its relationship alignment with FI-WARE. > > > > Many thanks in advance for your prompt answer to my demand. > > > > Hearing from you. > > > > Best Regards, > > Pascal > > > > > > Project Name -OPTET, Integrated Project, targeting Objective 1.4 in Call 8. > Partners - Thales (coord.), SAP, UDE, IBM-Haifa, UoS, SINTEF, ATC, ?. > > Topics: 1.4a Heterogeneous networked, service and computing > environments.(major) > > 1.4c Data policy, governance and socio-economic ecosystems.(minor) > Descriptive text from proposal > > > The OPTET project plans through a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach > to identify and address the drivers of trust and confidence also fight > against its erosion (especially true on the Internet or Cloud). Focus of > this project is on socio-technical systems connected to the Internet. The > resulting technologies enabling trustworthiness would be verified on two > distinct existing execution platforms to demonstrate genericity of OPTET > outcomes. ?Potential of OPTET results will be demonstrated and evaluated in > the context of two operational use cases one in the domain of Ambient > Assisted Living (AAL) and second Cyber Crisis Management.?Overall, the OPTET > project will significantly increase ?the trustworthiness of IT and Services > and thus strengthen the competitiveness of the European software and service > industry. In doing so OPTET will provide a powerful foundation for designing > and developing trustworthy system/services/apps stakeholders can trust > (since provable also guaranteed) for the future internet realizing its > promises. > > > > > > > > Relationship and Alignment with FI-Ware > This project aims at complementing the work already engaged in FI-WARE with > respect to trust enablement. This going far beyond what FI-WARE will (could) > do on those aspects. > > In OPTET we will consider FI-WARE testbed platform as one execution platform > to consider to deploy and verify Trustworthiness enabling technologies > (focus would be here on Trustworthiness Generic Enablers the way FI-WARE > defined GE). > > Any of the FI-PPP Use Case project could make use of the OPTET > trustworthiness since made available? to FI-WARE platform > > The OPTET project is leaded by Thales (in charge of Security in FI-WARE) and > some other partners in FI-WARE (SAP, IBM, UDE, ?) are also in OPTET which is > clearly in favor to end up with results (assets) we could value in FI-WARE. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Thu Jan 12 18:14:22 2012 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:14:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: dear jose, i do agree with pier. even more, we have to follow the same policy for everybody: they should provide at least the same statement yaron did. ciao, stefano 2012/1/12 Garino Pierangelo > Dear Jose,**** > > ** ** > > basically I have no objections to support these proposals, however I?d > like to have at least a short description of what they are going to propose > in relationship to FI-WARE. Did you receive some input you can share among > us?**** > > ** ** > > Meanwhile, I do agree with the support letter for the OPTET proposal.**** > > ** ** > > BR**** > > Pier**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Da:* fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto: > fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *Per conto di *JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > *Inviato:* gioved? 12 gennaio 2012 16:52 > *A:* 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' > *Oggetto:* [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters**** > > ** ** > > Dear PCC**** > > ** ** > > We have also received request form these projects to become part of the > ?community? using our results. We have prepared also support letters. **** > > ** ** > > Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make > questions or require further details we should ask them **** > > ** ** > > In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers.* > *** > > ** ** > > In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did > Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We > think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > BR**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ----**** > > ** ** > > Jose Jimenez**** > > Telefonica I+D**** > > jimenez at tid.es**** > > tf +34 91 4832660 **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx**** > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente > alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione > derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente > vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete > cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di > provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. > > *This e-mail and any attachments** is **confidential and may contain > privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, > copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not > the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and > advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.* > *[image: rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa > mail se non ? necessario.* > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Fri Jan 13 10:04:17 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:04:17 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A635F511AA8B6@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Jose, I agree with Stefano. It would be very helpful to get at first at least "some relevant" information about the project, and discuss afterwards a collaboration- and support-model. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2012 18:14 To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters dear jose, i do agree with pier. even more, we have to follow the same policy for everybody: they should provide at least the same statement yaron did. ciao, stefano 2012/1/12 Garino Pierangelo > Dear Jose, basically I have no objections to support these proposals, however I'd like to have at least a short description of what they are going to propose in relationship to FI-WARE. Did you receive some input you can share among us? Meanwhile, I do agree with the support letter for the OPTET proposal. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: gioved? 12 gennaio 2012 16:52 A: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters Dear PCC We have also received request form these projects to become part of the "community" using our results. We have prepared also support letters. Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make questions or require further details we should ask them In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers. In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. Error! Filename not specified.Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Fri Jan 13 10:30:34 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:30:34 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AA1@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> All right we proceed like this 1) we ask for a more detailed description 2) we ask for a commitment like The potential synergy between and FI-Ware is high and can contribute, we believe, to both projects. The consortium aims to maintain a FI-WARE compatible architecture and to extend FI-WARE ecosystem, by reusing some of the GE implementations, and potentially contributing back extended versions of those GE to the FI-Ware architecture. The expected accomplishments of would therefore be of importance to enlarge the horizons we foresee for the Future Internet, and for the fulfilment of the FI-WARE vision" Regarding OPNET, I enclose the letter I shall sign it if I receive no negative indication this afternoon Pascal, to whom we shall address it? BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: ste.depanfilis at gmail.com [mailto:ste.depanfilis at gmail.com] En nombre de stefano de panfilis Enviado el: jueves, 12 de enero de 2012 18:14 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters dear jose, i do agree with pier. even more, we have to follow the same policy for everybody: they should provide at least the same statement yaron did. ciao, stefano 2012/1/12 Garino Pierangelo > Dear Jose, basically I have no objections to support these proposals, however I'd like to have at least a short description of what they are going to propose in relationship to FI-WARE. Did you receive some input you can share among us? Meanwhile, I do agree with the support letter for the OPTET proposal. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: gioved? 12 gennaio 2012 16:52 A: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters Dear PCC We have also received request form these projects to become part of the "community" using our results. We have prepared also support letters. Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make questions or require further details we should ask them In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers. In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. ?Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OPTET.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31265 bytes Desc: OPTET.docx URL: From jimenez at tid.es Fri Jan 13 10:45:13 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:45:13 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AA1@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AA1@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AB3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Also find information about Amplifire and the letter. Again, I'll sign today EOB if no objections are raised BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 10:31 Para: 'stefano de panfilis'; 'pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com' CC: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters All right we proceed like this 1) we ask for a more detailed description 2) we ask for a commitment like The potential synergy between and FI-Ware is high and can contribute, we believe, to both projects. The consortium aims to maintain a FI-WARE compatible architecture and to extend FI-WARE ecosystem, by reusing some of the GE implementations, and potentially contributing back extended versions of those GE to the FI-Ware architecture. The expected accomplishments of would therefore be of importance to enlarge the horizons we foresee for the Future Internet, and for the fulfilment of the FI-WARE vision" Regarding OPNET, I enclose the letter I shall sign it if I receive no negative indication this afternoon Pascal, to whom we shall address it? BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: ste.depanfilis at gmail.com [mailto:ste.depanfilis at gmail.com] En nombre de stefano de panfilis Enviado el: jueves, 12 de enero de 2012 18:14 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters dear jose, i do agree with pier. even more, we have to follow the same policy for everybody: they should provide at least the same statement yaron did. ciao, stefano 2012/1/12 Garino Pierangelo > Dear Jose, basically I have no objections to support these proposals, however I'd like to have at least a short description of what they are going to propose in relationship to FI-WARE. Did you receive some input you can share among us? Meanwhile, I do agree with the support letter for the OPTET proposal. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: gioved? 12 gennaio 2012 16:52 A: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters Dear PCC We have also received request form these projects to become part of the "community" using our results. We have prepared also support letters. Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make questions or require further details we should ask them In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers. In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. ?Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: amplifire.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31321 bytes Desc: amplifire.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Amplifire Abstract.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17130 bytes Desc: Amplifire Abstract.docx URL: From Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu Fri Jan 13 15:52:03 2012 From: Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu (Lindsay Frost) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:52:03 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) References: Message-ID: <58967817BA9AEA4E92A38F89CE2EA93224C077A0@PALLENE.office.hd> Dear all, I knew Friday 13th is unlucky ... but I did not realize it causes death of contributions? So far only two inputs for the EU deliverable on Standardization Plan. I think the EU might decide to rename the document to "FI-Ware Standards" = Failing at IoT due to Worrying Absence of Results and Evolution into Standards Or what do you expect ? Hoping Monday is luckier .... Lindsay From: Lindsay Frost Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2012 15:40 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; 'GLIKSON at il.ibm.com'; 'andreas.friesen at sap.com'; 'axel.fasse at sap.com'; 'Burkhard.Neidecker-Lutz at sap.com'; 'ralli at tid.es'; 'denes.bisztray at nsn.com'; 'jdps at tid.es'; 'jimenez at tid.es'; 'jhierro at tid.es'; 'lorant.farkas at nsn.com'; 'matteo.melideo at eng.it'; 'mcp at tid.es'; 'nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu'; 'Olivier.Festor at inria.fr'; 'pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com'; 'pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it'; 'stefano.depanfilis at eng.it'; 'thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com'; 'thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch'; 'torsten.leidig at sap.com' Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; 'Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena' Subject: [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) Importance: High Dear colleagues in FI-Ware, welcome into 2012 A.D. ! Another year, another set of deadlines ... In the last email of Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena from 2011, there was a request to provide information for the FI-Ware standardization plan. I am tasked with filling in the relevant deliverable by the end of January - about 3 weeks from now. So far there is nearly nothing new to say, compared to the broad remarks given one year ago in applying for the project. I am sure this is not the impression you want to give to the EC about your organization... To make contributing a bit easier, I drafted the attached SHORT input formula. Could you please make sure your organization fills in Page 2 and returns it to me by Friday 13th January ? Thank you Lindsay Frost PS: if you are not the proper contact in your organization for this topic, please send me the correct email address and I will bother them instead ;-) _____________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. NEC Laboratories Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. NEC Europe Ltd, Reg. England, VAT DE161569151 frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 __________________________________ From: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena [mailto:juan.bareno at atosresearch.eu] Sent: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 13:43 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs Subject: WP11-Explotation Summary and Next Steps Dear Colleagues Please find here enclosed a initial presentation of what business issues regarding FI WARE have to be discussed to agree on a common message about FI WARE market positioning and the IPRs and Standardization activities management Additionally you can find the templates to fulfill aiming to obtain the exploitation and standardization issues feedback from each partner: - Exploitation: o Individual exploitation plan- by partner (Form 1) o Domain exploitation plan- by WPL (Form 2) - Standardization o Standardization Report- by WPL o Excel with main contacts- by partner Please review the presentation and send feedback and fulfill the templates accordingly I take advantage of this email to wish you all a very nice Christmas and a Happy New Year Br Juan Next week we will circulate a first commercial draft brochure Juan Bare?o Global Innovation, Business Development & Strategy Research & Innovation T +34 912148859 juan.bareno at atos.net Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atos.net www.atosresearch.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Fri Jan 13 15:58:51 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:58:51 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AB3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082A0D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AA1@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082AB3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082B5D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> And the information from Tristan "The dependency of our information society on technology and digital information processing has increased over the years. Much of our daily life and work critically depends on complex IT systems and on digital communications, mediated through personal computer and ubiquitous personal electronic devices. We strongly rely on these technologies and devices to process and protect sensitive information. Maintaining an appropriate level of trustworthiness in these modern and future ICT systems and services is challenging for a number of reasons: * Appropriate security/privacy architecture must be designed in conjunction with the overall system architecture design. * ICT systems and deployed security technologies should be able to support new services without major changes to the architecture. It is challenging to predict which security and privacy mechanisms will be needed to protect new services and whether their integration will have impact on the security protection of the entire system and on the services that are already in use. * Coexistence of the secured and non-secured elements for incremental deployments and scalability. Policies need to be defined for controlling non-secured elements (e.g., guest access to the infrastructure), so that it cannot pose any threat to the secure infrastructure. * Localization and isolation of the attacks. Tracking or tracing of the compromised source should be easily done, and necessary protective measures enabled on-demand. The TRISTAN project will perform research on novel security enabling technologies rooted in current and future hardware security functions. The focus is on open security architecture - reusing, extending and maintaining a FI-WARE Future Internet compatible architecture -, novel trust evaluation protocols and security policy handling, together with platform technologies such as hypervisors, operating systems, middleware software in virtualized systems and FI-WARE Security enablers: Security Monitoring, Identity Management GE, Privacy GE and Data Handling GE. These new security enabling technologies will allow the building of secure services in dynamic ICT systems, where heterogeneous devices interact with each other in unpredictable ways using a communication link technology of choice. The new security enablers will be developed based on identified industry needs and verified in proof of concept systems developed in the project. As proposed by TRISTAN, an integrated approach, with industrial, small and fast growing ICT security specialist companies and academic participation, will create compelling, prototype-based evidence that its results can provide essential security solutions for the Future Internet. This will in turn open up for development of new trustworthy ICT products, services, and markets." I'll send it on Monday morning if there is no problem BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 10:45 Para: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters Also find information about Amplifire and the letter. Again, I'll sign today EOB if no objections are raised BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 10:31 Para: 'stefano de panfilis'; 'pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com' CC: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters All right we proceed like this 1) we ask for a more detailed description 2) we ask for a commitment like The potential synergy between and FI-Ware is high and can contribute, we believe, to both projects. The consortium aims to maintain a FI-WARE compatible architecture and to extend FI-WARE ecosystem, by reusing some of the GE implementations, and potentially contributing back extended versions of those GE to the FI-Ware architecture. The expected accomplishments of would therefore be of importance to enlarge the horizons we foresee for the Future Internet, and for the fulfilment of the FI-WARE vision" Regarding OPNET, I enclose the letter I shall sign it if I receive no negative indication this afternoon Pascal, to whom we shall address it? BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: ste.depanfilis at gmail.com [mailto:ste.depanfilis at gmail.com] En nombre de stefano de panfilis Enviado el: jueves, 12 de enero de 2012 18:14 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] R: Other support letters dear jose, i do agree with pier. even more, we have to follow the same policy for everybody: they should provide at least the same statement yaron did. ciao, stefano 2012/1/12 Garino Pierangelo > Dear Jose, basically I have no objections to support these proposals, however I'd like to have at least a short description of what they are going to propose in relationship to FI-WARE. Did you receive some input you can share among us? Meanwhile, I do agree with the support letter for the OPTET proposal. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: gioved? 12 gennaio 2012 16:52 A: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Other support letters Dear PCC We have also received request form these projects to become part of the "community" using our results. We have prepared also support letters. Again, I submit it to you before sending it. Of course if you want to make questions or require further details we should ask them In the first case, TRISTAN the project want to use the Security enablers. In the case of Amplifire, this is a proposal from the group that did Fire-Station and has a significant participation from the PPP partners. We think it can be useful to be present in future FIRE activities BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. ?Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TRISTAN Letter of Interest FI-WARE v4 (3).doc Type: application/msword Size: 40960 bytes Desc: TRISTAN Letter of Interest FI-WARE v4 (3).doc URL: From jimenez at tid.es Mon Jan 16 15:36:47 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:36:47 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Other projects asking for support. SONNET Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197A2E@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear all We have new request for Support. I think this is interesting so I'll send the letter tomorrow first time in the morning Sonnet project "The Interface to the Network and Devices work package of FI-WARE includes QoE concepts, and the FI-WARE platform is open to the possibility of enabling QoE management by "translating" QoE measurements into QoS requirements. Clearly, this last concept is absolutely analogous to part of what SONNET is proposing. Besides, SONNET will clearly define the mechanisms to perform the QoE management and provide additional features which are not investigated in FI-WARE, such as, for example, the development of QoE models, the development of an integrated utility-based optimization framework which accounts for both QoE and business models, the development of context-aware network management protocols. SONNET will design the facilities so that they are as far as possible compliant with FI-WARE vision. Therefore, the potential synergy between SONNET and FI-WARE is high and can contribute, we believe, to both projects: SONNET results will provide additional features to FI-WARE, opening new business opportunities, whereas FI-WARE will enhance the exploitation perspectives of SONNET. The achievement of these results can be easily assured thanks the fact that two SONNET partners (namely, University of Rome and Telecom Italia) are fully involved in the FI-WARE project, and, in particular, Telecom Italia is the leader of the Interface to the Network and Devices Work Package." BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SONNET_abstract.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23552 bytes Desc: SONNET_abstract.doc URL: From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 17 09:17:33 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:17:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal In-Reply-To: <010401ccd4ed$0396bd90$0ac438b0$%figuerola@i2cat.net> References: <006301ccd3a9$f0499670$d0dcc350$%figuerola@i2cat.net> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082C33@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4F144758.5030006@zhaw.ch> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197A47@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <010401ccd4ed$0396bd90$0ac438b0$%figuerola@i2cat.net> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197A91@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Hi Sergi I am really sorry. We could certainly discuss this, but we need to follow the procedures at the PCC and I am afraid we do not have really the time to discuss alternative wording, since the text I proposed to you was carefully discussed at the PCC level I certainly hope we can come together after your proposal is approved. Thank you ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 -----Mensaje original----- De: Sergi Figuerola [mailto:sergi.figuerola at i2cat.net] Enviado el: martes, 17 de enero de 2012 8:53 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch CC: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; 'Matteo Biancani'; JUAN PEDRO FERNANDEZ-PALACIOS GIMENEZ; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO Asunto: RE: request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal Importancia: Alta Hello Jose, Thanks for your efforts. I attach the letter with some changes on the sentence you sent me. However, we may not get the LoS, since I cannot provide you with the full description of the project and the associated activities. It is the Part B itself and it cannot distribute it externally. Actually we were not requesting an explicit usage of FI-WARE (since we do not know it technically well enough), but to strength from the very beginning our potential collaborations, to exchange ideas, expertise and collaborate on future research topics. We were confident that maybe FI-WARE could even use the infrastructure services we target in DYNAMIC. Since DYNAMIC is a pure infrastructure project aiming at supporting the cloud service delivery, acting as an enabler for network/IT convergence Best regards, Sergi Pd. hope we can get in touch again if the project is successful. -----Mensaje original----- De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO [mailto:jimenez at tid.es] Enviado el: lunes, 16 / enero / 2012 16:54 Para: 'thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch' CC: 'Sergi Figuerola'; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; 'Matteo Biancani'; JUAN PEDRO FERNANDEZ-PALACIOS GIMENEZ; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO Asunto: RE: request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal I can try to go as fast as possible. If Sergi sends me the information I shall start immediately and we should have it tomorrow. But definitely we need to ask the PCC BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 -----Mensaje original----- De: Thomas Michael Bohnert [mailto:thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch] Enviado el: lunes, 16 de enero de 2012 16:51 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: 'Sergi Figuerola'; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; 'Matteo Biancani'; JUAN PEDRO FERNANDEZ-PALACIOS GIMENEZ; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO Asunto: Re: request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal Hi Jose, > 3) Note the process should take 1-2 days at least since we need that time to go to the PCC TMB: Is there a realistic chance before tomorrow 5pm? Best - Thomas Thomas Michael Bohnert Zurich University of Applied Sciences Institute of Information Technology mailto: thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch www: http://tmb.nginet.de twitter: tmbohnert On 01/16/2012 01:23 PM, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: > Hola Sergi > > Encantados de firmar esta carta, pero seguimos un procedimiento que > ya esta establecido en Fi-WARe,. Te lo digo en ingles por si tienes > que pas?rselo a otros socios. La verdad es que, en las fechas que > estamos, es un poco complicado porque lleva algo de tiempo > > 1) We need a fuller description of the project and activities. Particularly describing how you plan to use Fi.-WARE. At least we need to understand the objective of the project and why you think this is relevant to FIWARE. > > 2) we normally include a paragraph like this > > There potential synergy between and FI-Ware is high and > can contribute, we believe, to both projects. The consortium aims to maintain a FI-WARE compatible architecture and to extend FI-WARE ecosystem, by reusing some of the GE implementations, and potentially contributing back extended versions of those GE to the FI-Ware architecture. The expected accomplishments of would therefore be of importance to enlarge the horizons we foresee for the Future Internet, and for the fulfilment of the FI-WARE vision" > > 3) Note the process should take 1-2 days at least since we need that > time to go to the PCC > > > Saludos > > > ---- > > Jose Jimenez > Telefonica I+D > jimenez at tid.es > tf +34 91 4832660 > > > De: Sergi Figuerola [mailto:sergi.figuerola at i2cat.net] > Enviado el: domingo, 15 de enero de 2012 18:20 > Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > CC: 'Matteo Biancani'; thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch; JUAN PEDRO > FERNANDEZ-PALACIOS GIMENEZ; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; LUIS MIGUEL > CONTRERAS MURILLO > Asunto: request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal > Importancia: Alta > > Dear Mr. Juanjo Hierro, > > On behalf of Matteo Biancani (Coordinator of the DyNAmIC proposal for > call 8). I would like to kindly ask you, as chief architect of FI-WARE, to consider the attached letter of support for the DyNAmIC (Datacenters and Network infrAstructures coordInation for Cloud service delivery) proposal for call 8 under the objective 1.1. > > The DyNAmIC proposal leverages the work done in the GEYSERS project, > which is aligned with the strategy pursued by the FI-WARE project, and expands it by providing infrastructure support to cloud services. This support is achieved by the coordination of processes between telecom operators and data centre providers. > > Thus, after discussing it with Mr. Thomas Bohnert and taking into consideration that TID is also one of the main leaders behind the idea of DyNAmIC, we would like to ask you to consider the signature of a letter of support from FI-WARE, which would qualify us on our plans to establish a strong collaboration and support with the evolution of the FI-WARE project. If agree, feel free to consider the text provided on the draft LoS attached. > > I look forward received your feedback > With kind regards > Sergi > > > Sergi Figuerola > Area Director > Distributed Applications and Networks Area (DANA) i2CAT Foundation > Barcelona (Spain) > fix/cel: +34.93.553.2515/ +34.675.780.950 > mail: sergi.figuerola at i2cat.net > http://dana.i2cat.net > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments it may contain confidential material > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distri- > bution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender > (sergi.figuerola at i2cat.net) and > delete all copies. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ________________________________ > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 17 09:40:14 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:40:14 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Letter of support for Sonnet Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197AA3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear Maurizio, As Pierangelo can explain, we have approved at the PCC an standard text for the support letters, whereby the project compromises to maintain and support explicitly the Fiware architecture. I have drafted a version with that section. If you accept it, I can ask for the PCC approval and send you the letter properly signed, following the procedure approved by FIWARE PCC Please check if this is acceptable to you and the Sonnet team. BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sonnet.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 28675 bytes Desc: sonnet.docx URL: From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 17 13:04:00 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:04:00 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal In-Reply-To: <010401ccd4ed$0396bd90$0ac438b0$%figuerola@i2cat.net> References: <006301ccd3a9$f0499670$d0dcc350$%figuerola@i2cat.net> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA082C33@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4F144758.5030006@zhaw.ch> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197A47@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <010401ccd4ed$0396bd90$0ac438b0$%figuerola@i2cat.net> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197B01@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Hello Sergi, Thank you for your understanding. I definitely think it is really too late to do anything. As I explained, we have set up a procedure and I would not like to change it, particularly when we are also part of the proposal I am sending copy of your mail to the PCC and I am sure, one the proposal is approved, we can continue collaboration between the two projects Look forward hearing from you on this issue after the DYNAMIC approval Best regards ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 -----Mensaje original----- De: Sergi Figuerola [mailto:sergi.figuerola at i2cat.net] Enviado el: martes, 17 de enero de 2012 8:53 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch CC: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; 'Matteo Biancani'; JUAN PEDRO FERNANDEZ-PALACIOS GIMENEZ; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO Asunto: RE: request for a LoS of FI-WARE for the DyNAmIC proposal Importancia: Alta Hello Jose, Thanks for your efforts. I attach the letter with some changes on the sentence you sent me. However, we may not get the LoS, since I cannot provide you with the full description of the project and the associated activities. It is the Part B itself and it cannot distribute it externally. Actually we were not requesting an explicit usage of FI-WARE (since we do not know it technically well enough), but to strength from the very beginning our potential collaborations, to exchange ideas, expertise and collaborate on future research topics. We were confident that maybe FI-WARE could even use the infrastructure services we target in DYNAMIC. Since DYNAMIC is a pure infrastructure project aiming at supporting the cloud service delivery, acting as an enabler for network/IT convergence Best regards, Sergi Pd. hope we can get in touch again if the project is successful. Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it Tue Jan 17 09:44:33 2012 From: maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it (Cecchi Maurizio) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:44:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Letter of support for Sonnet In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197AA3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197AA3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Thank you Jos?, I forward the question to Antonio Pietrabissa : he belongs to the proposing consortium Regards Maurzio Da: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO [mailto:jimenez at tid.es] Inviato: marted? 17 gennaio 2012 09:40 A: Cecchi Maurizio; 'Antonio Pietrabissa'; Garino Pierangelo Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: Letter of support for Sonnet Dear Maurizio, As Pierangelo can explain, we have approved at the PCC an standard text for the support letters, whereby the project compromises to maintain and support explicitly the Fiware architecture. I have drafted a version with that section. If you accept it, I can ask for the PCC approval and send you the letter properly signed, following the procedure approved by FIWARE PCC Please check if this is acceptable to you and the Sonnet team. BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg URL: From pietrabissa at dis.uniroma1.it Tue Jan 17 11:57:09 2012 From: pietrabissa at dis.uniroma1.it (Antonio Pietrabissa) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:57:09 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Letter of support for Sonnet In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197AA3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197AA3@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <069E8C56-94E8-484C-9E0F-5AA36DCB74CE@dis.uniroma1.it> Dear Jose, unfortunately, I did not manage to reach all the partners in time to agree on the letter of support, therefore I am not able to accept the support letter on behalf of all the consortium. However, I'm convinced that, in case of approval, we will establish a really fruitful cooperation between SONNET and FI-WARE, since both Telecom IT and Univ. of Rome will aim the SONNET efforts towards the FI-WARE platform. I apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your effort. Kind regards, Antonio Pietrabissa --------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Antonio Pietrabissa Assistant Professor Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica (DIS) Sapienza Universit? di Roma Via Ariosto 25, 00185, Roma, A218 phone: +39 06 77274040 cel.: +39 335 8135654 fax: +39 06 77274033 email: pietrabissa at dis.uniroma1.it Il giorno 17 Jan 2012, 09:40, alle ore 09:40, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO ha scritto: > Dear Maurizio, > > As Pierangelo can explain, we have approved at the PCC an standard text for the support letters, whereby the project compromises to maintain and support explicitly the Fiware architecture. > > I have drafted a version with that section. If you accept it, I can ask for the PCC approval and send you the letter properly signed, following the procedure approved by FIWARE PCC > > Please check if this is acceptable to you and the Sonnet team. > > BR > > > > > > ---- > > Jose Jimenez > Telefonica I+D > jimenez at tid.es > tf +34 91 4832660 > > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 18 11:56:49 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:56:49 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Wed Jan 18 12:47:19 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:47:19 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Although it is a free day in Israel, I personally don't mind having a PCC meeting on Friday, because my flight back is on Friday evening. But maybe others planned to leave earlier.. Regards, Alex From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" Date: 18/01/2012 01:00 PM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we?re having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions ? I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 18 12:59:18 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:59:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197C0A@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Thank you Alex, very kind In fact, my worry is that we would need to have the PCC late Friday afternoon, which may be why I though it is better to have it the following week. Anyway, if you prefer we can include this possibility, but we would need everybody to stay until the end (i.e. at least until 18.30). In my opinion, this is very difficult and we really have little time to do anything, just remember what happened in Madrid and Turin. Also, having some time to think after the WP meetings may be helpful BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: Alex Glikson [mailto:GLIKSON at il.ibm.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 12:47 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Although it is a free day in Israel, I personally don't mind having a PCC meeting on Friday, because my flight back is on Friday evening. But maybe others planned to leave earlier.. Regards, Alex From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" Date: 18/01/2012 01:00 PM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx_______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Jan 18 14:11:58 2012 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:11:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197C0A@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197C0A@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: dear jose, i voted in doodle, but given the kind availability of alex, i'm really much more in favour to have it on friday afternoon. eventually who cannot should be present in audio. ciao, stefano 2012/1/18 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Thank you Alex, very kind > > > > In fact, my worry is that we would need to have the PCC late Friday > afternoon, which may be why I though it is better to have it the following > week. > > > > Anyway, if you prefer we can include this possibility, but we would need > everybody to stay until the end (i.e. at least until 18.30). > > > > In my opinion, this is very difficult and we really have little time to do > anything, just remember what happened in Madrid and Turin. Also, having some > time to think after the WP meetings may be helpful > > > > BR > > > > > > ---- > > > > Jose Jimenez > > Telefonica? I+D > > jimenez at tid.es > > tf +34 91 4832660 > > > > > > De: Alex Glikson [mailto:GLIKSON at il.ibm.com] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 12:47 > Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > CC: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting > > > > Although it is a free day in Israel, I personally don't mind having a PCC > meeting on Friday, because my flight back is on Friday evening. But maybe > others planned to leave earlier.. > > Regards, > Alex > > > > > From: ? ? ? ?JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > To: ? ? ? ?"'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" > Date: ? ? ? ?18/01/2012 01:00 PM > Subject: ? ? ? ?[Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting > Sent by: ? ? ? ?fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > > ________________________________ > > > > > Dear all > > As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite > a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra > preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the > discussions we had just before Christmas > > Next week (23-29) we?re having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It > would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible > due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP > meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be > suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends > having to work on a free day > > So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would > set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite > important issues we need to discuss. > > I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. > > I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include > something else: > > PROPOSED AGENDA > > 1) General project coordination > ?Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. > ?Possible effort movements and ?adjustment > ?Possible revision on project review report (if required) > ?Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. > > 2) ?Fiware Architecture Board representative. > (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to > send a detailed profile of the required person ?asap). Even if the profile > will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, > eventually propose solutions ? I presume you already know what is required > to be a AB member) > > 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and > possible actions > > 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial > constraints. > > 6) Open call approval and related actions > > 7) AOB > > BR > ---- > > Jose Jimenez > Telefonica ?I+D > jimenez at tid.es > tf +34 91 4832660 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx_______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > > > ________________________________ > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Wed Jan 18 14:41:44 2012 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:41:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197C0A@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197C0A@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Dear Jose, I have to leave Madrid on Wednesday evening for another meeting the day after, so for me it would be impossible to attend on Friday. I voted the doodle however, as Stefano suggested, I could manage to be present on Friday via audio connection. BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Inviato: mercoled? 18 gennaio 2012 12:59 A: 'Alex Glikson' Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Thank you Alex, very kind In fact, my worry is that we would need to have the PCC late Friday afternoon, which may be why I though it is better to have it the following week. Anyway, if you prefer we can include this possibility, but we would need everybody to stay until the end (i.e. at least until 18.30). In my opinion, this is very difficult and we really have little time to do anything, just remember what happened in Madrid and Turin. Also, having some time to think after the WP meetings may be helpful BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: Alex Glikson [mailto:GLIKSON at il.ibm.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 12:47 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Although it is a free day in Israel, I personally don't mind having a PCC meeting on Friday, because my flight back is on Friday evening. But maybe others planned to leave earlier.. Regards, Alex From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" > Date: 18/01/2012 01:00 PM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx_______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Jan 18 16:35:43 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:35:43 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] =?iso-8859-1?q?RE=A0=3A__Next_PCC_meeting?= References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Dear all, As I explained previously, we cannot set an agenda one week before the meeting. I had to change my flying ticket once to stay another day for 2 hours meeting. I will not change twice the flying ticket to wait a whole day in Madrid, despite it's a nice city, to have another meeting. In parallel, I have some other meetings on Friday so I'm trying to fulfil the doodle for a telco but for the time being, I have a blank page. Best regards Thierry -------- Message d'origine-------- De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu de la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Date: mer. 18/01/2012 11:56 ?: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 18 17:39:44 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:39:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197CAE@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear Thierry I am proposing a meeting the week 30J- 5F (i.e. 2 weeks in advance). I am not proposing a meeting on Friday in Madrid. It is just an audio and it will be the following week. BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: thierry.nagellen at orange.com [mailto:thierry.nagellen at orange.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 16:36 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE : [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all, As I explained previously, we cannot set an agenda one week before the meeting. I had to change my flying ticket once to stay another day for 2 hours meeting. I will not change twice the flying ticket to wait a whole day in Madrid, despite it's a nice city, to have another meeting. In parallel, I have some other meetings on Friday so I'm trying to fulfil the doodle for a telco but for the time being, I have a blank page. Best regards Thierry -------- Message d'origine-------- De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu de la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Date: mer. 18/01/2012 11:56 ?: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Wed Jan 18 19:41:31 2012 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:41:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting-VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO IMPACT In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A54EF2A@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Dear partners, I have also filled in the doodle with the dates that I can confirm now. The 1st of February and 2nd in the morning I will probably be available but I cannot confirm yet. As Stefano has pointed out, it would be a pity not using the opportunity to discuss in a face-to-face meeting. Things are much easier when you can talk directly to the person. After one full week of FI-WARE meeting it is difficult to believe that there is no way to organize this so that major organizations can be present. In any case, let's wait for the availability of people to discuss and based on that let's close the date. If a physical meeting is organized Friday next week (which I encourage to progress with some "hot" issues), then I will be available. Let me attract your attention to WP11 as something I would particularly like to discuss in the PCC. I think that the EC has made clear comments about the need of industrial companies to get involved in this task. So far the project has taken care of the technical details exclusively. This is not enough. The EC has been very clear saying that even if all GE work this will not mean that the project is successful (success will only come if we have reached the expected impact). I include below ONLY A SUBSET of the comments included in the Review Report. No more words need to be said, I think. The results of FI-WARE are expected to be readily exploitable and used Tangible and significant impacts on the market within 3 to 5 years from the project start. ? This means that impact should be visible already at the ened of the project and in a maximum timeframe of 2 years since then With no formal deliverable from WP11 due for the present review period, it is premature to make any significant comment on the project impact. However, relevant issues did emerge in the course of the review meeting. The consortium is reminded that producing software that works does not by itself lead to results that are useful, usable and used. In line with such discussions, it is essential that: (a) The industrial project partners have a genuine business commitment to the development and implementation of the project results; (b) The Generic Enablers are exploitable, leading to practical and commercially viable exploitation not just by the project partners, but also by external third parties beyond the use cases of the FI-PPP; (c) The integration of the different technologies constituting the baseline assets of FIWARE for GE delivery and GE instantiation and bundling be tackled head-on and early, at both technical level (which impacts on the usability of the GEs) and business level (which impacts on the exploitation potential and prospects); (d) The project works to the timeframe as specified in the DoW, to ensure timely delivery and publication of its outputs. The project must keep engagement of the emerging developer community inside the programme (and outside as far as possible) in acute focus This leads to the need of discussing the Testing Infrastructure and Open Innovation Lab as soon as possible. Progress is acceptable for the present early stage of the project. While there is no deliverable due, and clearly some work has been performed on market analysis etc, the consortium did not give the impression of attaching sufficient importance to exploitation planning, which must be tackled earnestly and must start early Besides this we have received several times the warnings from NEC about Standardization activities. Apparently only two partners have delivered the information agreed. Contributions are not arriving in due time, and the deliverable was expected in M9!!!!!!!! What is the mechanism to change this? We cannot afford closing our eyes and let the responsible partner solve the issue. The project belongs to all of us, and therefore it is the responsibility of ALL of us to react: I think I start to get energies again after Call8 and I would like to insist very much on all these aspects, that are crucial for reviewers and the project will have to show sound progress in the next review and coming deliverables (in M9 and M12!!!!!!!!!). Thanks for your consideration. Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net ________________________________ From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 11:57 To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 19 09:21:49 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:21:49 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting-VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO IMPACT In-Reply-To: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A54EF2A@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A54EF2A@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197CFC@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Thank you Nuria A couple of issues: 1) Meeting in person: Let me clarify that the meeting next week is a WP meeting. Not a sort of General assembly. As you know, several of us will not be present -we are going to Brussels- and also some people, such as Thierry and Pierangelo, will not be here on Friday. As far as I am concerned, I have no problem -as you can imagine- to have the meeting on Friday, but I think it is better not to do it. Also, I somewhat disagree it is better to discuss things in person. I feel it is better to do it in written form. We can do it asynchronously and we can choose the words and the position much better. We also have the written proof and maybe we do not say "too many " foolish things. However, I am not so "radical" and I am not proposing we have a "mail meeting" -even if that would be interesting to try- but rather an audio perhaps with "chat" on top of it. 2) The discussion on WP11 is key, not only for "pleasing" the EC but, essentially to decide what is the future of FIWARE and the PPP as a whole. I think if we are not able to find a reasonable business model for FIWARE, (perhaps with only part of the partners) I cannot imagine who is going to present a proposal for the next phase. We are no longer "learning" but trying to make some money out or it. Certainly, I would like to ask you to consider whether you think continuation of the project is reasonable and what would you change to make it useful for your company. Perhaps we should change the objective of WP11 into analyzing that issue. I agree with Nuria -and the EC- this is key, and would like to invite you to express your opinions on this issue here, by mail. This way we have something discussed in advance for the meeting and, most important, for the future of the PPP. The question essentially is: Do you think Fiware is useful for your company?. What do you expect to have at the end?. Do you see a business opportunity there or just an interesting experiment?. If this is just an interesting experiment, we should go to the EC and say so. They would not be pleased but we have tried. Never promised we would become rich. Then we should design phase 2 as another interesting experiment. That would be a useful result for WP11 If there is a business opportunity, we should try to make it happen in a more serious way. Then WP11 has quite an important job in front. Comments? BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: Nuria De-Lama Sanchez [mailto:nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 19:42 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting-VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO IMPACT Importancia: Alta Dear partners, I have also filled in the doodle with the dates that I can confirm now. The 1st of February and 2nd in the morning I will probably be available but I cannot confirm yet. As Stefano has pointed out, it would be a pity not using the opportunity to discuss in a face-to-face meeting. Things are much easier when you can talk directly to the person. After one full week of FI-WARE meeting it is difficult to believe that there is no way to organize this so that major organizations can be present. In any case, let's wait for the availability of people to discuss and based on that let's close the date. If a physical meeting is organized Friday next week (which I encourage to progress with some "hot" issues), then I will be available. Let me attract your attention to WP11 as something I would particularly like to discuss in the PCC. I think that the EC has made clear comments about the need of industrial companies to get involved in this task. So far the project has taken care of the technical details exclusively. This is not enough. The EC has been very clear saying that even if all GE work this will not mean that the project is successful (success will only come if we have reached the expected impact). I include below ONLY A SUBSET of the comments included in the Review Report. No more words need to be said, I think. The results of FI-WARE are expected to be readily exploitable and used Tangible and significant impacts on the market within 3 to 5 years from the project start. --> This means that impact should be visible already at the ened of the project and in a maximum timeframe of 2 years since then With no formal deliverable from WP11 due for the present review period, it is premature to make any significant comment on the project impact. However, relevant issues did emerge in the course of the review meeting. The consortium is reminded that producing software that works does not by itself lead to results that are useful, usable and used. In line with such discussions, it is essential that: (a) The industrial project partners have a genuine business commitment to the development and implementation of the project results; (b) The Generic Enablers are exploitable, leading to practical and commercially viable exploitation not just by the project partners, but also by external third parties beyond the use cases of the FI-PPP; (c) The integration of the different technologies constituting the baseline assets of FIWARE for GE delivery and GE instantiation and bundling be tackled head-on and early, at both technical level (which impacts on the usability of the GEs) and business level (which impacts on the exploitation potential and prospects); (d) The project works to the timeframe as specified in the DoW, to ensure timely delivery and publication of its outputs. The project must keep engagement of the emerging developer community inside the programme (and outside as far as possible) in acute focus This leads to the need of discussing the Testing Infrastructure and Open Innovation Lab as soon as possible. Progress is acceptable for the present early stage of the project. While there is no deliverable due, and clearly some work has been performed on market analysis etc, the consortium did not give the impression of attaching sufficient importance to exploitation planning, which must be tackled earnestly and must start early Besides this we have received several times the warnings from NEC about Standardization activities. Apparently only two partners have delivered the information agreed. Contributions are not arriving in due time, and the deliverable was expected in M9!!!!!!!! What is the mechanism to change this? We cannot afford closing our eyes and let the responsible partner solve the issue. The project belongs to all of us, and therefore it is the responsibility of ALL of us to react: I think I start to get energies again after Call8 and I would like to insist very much on all these aspects, that are crucial for reviewers and the project will have to show sound progress in the next review and coming deliverables (in M9 and M12!!!!!!!!!). Thanks for your consideration. Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net [cid:image002.gif at 01CCD689.91799630] ________________________________ From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: mi?rcoles, 18 de enero de 2012 11:57 To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Thu Jan 19 11:01:39 2012 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:01:39 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <1787_1326967304_4F17EA08_1787_2722_1_7d26eb8d-3cfa-4709-925e-11177cfdd948@THSONEA01HUB03P.one.grp> Dear Jos?, This email just to let you know that as requested I have answered to the poll. As for where goes my preference I can clearly say that I'm in favor to have physical PCC meeting at our GAs as it was the case so far. For the same reasons already expressed by other PCC members who wanted to have it that way. Of course I'd like to have these physical PCC meeting be complemented by (regular or whenever) PCC audio conf. But for the topical issues to address I do think we need a physical meeting and also count on the commitment of every representative to be there. That's also why PCC physical meetings have to be planned at GAs. This doesn't mean they have to be planned the last day GA (which might be the source of the problem ...) Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : mercredi 18 janvier 2012 11:57 ? : 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we're having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions - I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 19 13:32:26 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:32:26 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] meeting PCC Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197DD6@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Please do not forget to vote for the next audio conference http://doodle.com/ser5u3733t36dkpp Nuria, Stefano, please reconsider your votes... or consider an alternative BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Thu Jan 19 16:21:09 2012 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:21:09 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] meeting PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197DD6@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197DD6@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A54F27A@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Done. Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net ________________________________ From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: jueves, 19 de enero de 2012 13:32 To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: [Fiware-pcc] meeting PCC Please do not forget to vote for the next audio conference http://doodle.com/ser5u3733t36dkpp Nuria, Stefano, please reconsider your votes... or consider an alternative BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Mon Jan 23 14:58:04 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:58:04 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] candidatures for AB In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA08242C@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A635F52593B15@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Jose, Thomas send my CV to you and Juanjo. As discussed in the last PCC-Call, SAP is interested to fulfill the AB-Role. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Alex Glikson Sent: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 11:36 To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] candidatures for AB Dear Jose, Process-wise, haven't we agreed that you and/or Juanjo will first send an official 'call' for candidates, specifying the job description, and only then companies will come back with candidates? Or maybe I missed something.. Regards, Alex From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" Date: 03/01/2012 12:26 PM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] candidatures for AB Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear PCC Just to inform you we have received no candidatures so far for the post of second AB member, as agreed in the PCC audio conference https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/693/FI-WARE+Minutes12-12-11.docx We have asked Thomas for more details, but we have received no news yet. In any case, the process is open and certainly we would like to see whether we have candidatures. A decision should be taken asap on this issue Just send a short CV with the candidate's proposal (3-4 lines is enough) BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx_______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Fri Jan 27 10:23:58 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:23:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting In-Reply-To: <1787_1326967304_4F17EA08_1787_2722_1_7d26eb8d-3cfa-4709-925e-11177cfdd948@THSONEA01HUB03P.one.grp> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA197BE2@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <1787_1326967304_4F17EA08_1787_2722_1_7d26eb8d-3cfa-4709-925e-11177cfdd948@THSONEA01HUB03P.one.grp> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967B9A96513@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> According to the results fo the Doodle, we shall have the meeting next February 1 at 15 hours. Please account for 3 hours We shall use the usual pownow bridge, combined with Webex. I shall send the details shortly BR ------ Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D Madrid jimenez at tid.es +34 91 483 2660 ________________________________ De: BISSON Pascal [pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: jueves, 19 de enero de 2012 11:01 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' CC: BISSON Pascal; SIEUX Corinne Asunto: RE: Next PCC meeting Dear Jos?, This email just to let you know that as requested I have answered to the poll. As for where goes my preference I can clearly say that I?m in favor to have physical PCC meeting at our GAs as it was the case so far. For the same reasons already expressed by other PCC members who wanted to have it that way. Of course I?d like to have these physical PCC meeting be complemented by (regular or whenever) PCC audio conf. But for the topical issues to address I do think we need a physical meeting and also count on the commitment of every representative to be there. That?s also why PCC physical meetings have to be planned at GAs. This doesn?t mean they have to be planned the last day GA (which might be the source of the problem ?) Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : mercredi 18 janvier 2012 11:57 ? : 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Next PCC meeting Dear all As you know, we should be continuing the meetings of the PCC. We have quite a lot of issues to discuss, some of them need quite a lot of extra preparation, that is the reason why we have not been able to continue the discussions we had just before Christmas Next week (23-29) we?re having a number of interworkpackage meeting. It would be an ideal time to have our PCC but unfortunately it is impossible due to logistic reasons. Also, most of you would also like to be in the WP meetings. The only alternative would be Friday and we think it would not be suitable to have it that day, everybody in a hurry and our Israeli friends having to work on a free day So I would propose to have an Audio conference the following week. I would set aside at least 3 hours for the audio to have enough time for the quite important issues we need to discuss. I have settled this Doodle to decide the best time. Please vote. I am proposing the following agenda. Please tell me if you would include something else: PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions ? I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Fri Jan 27 15:06:11 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:06:11 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] PCC Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967B9A96519@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Cu?ndo: mi?rcoles, 01 de febrero de 2012 15:00-18:00. Hora est?ndar romance D?nde: Audio *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf Webex data will be sent later PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions ? I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. Market Advisory Council 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 3032 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Fri Jan 27 15:41:03 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:41:03 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] PCC Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B6341967BA1986CF@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Cu?ndo: mi?rcoles, 01 de febrero de 2012 15:00-18:00 (GMT+01:00) Bruselas, Copenhague, Madrid, Par?s. D?nde: Audio *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf Gestor i-Reunion webex9100 invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: pcc meeting Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Time: 2:30 pm, Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00) Meeting Number: 964 991 004 Meeting Password: 1234abcD Host Key: 662764 (use this to reclaim host privileges) ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from iPhones too!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://telefonica.webex.com/telefonica-en/j.php?ED=190324527&UID=1269557702&PW=NYmVkMTA4YTUw&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: 1234abcD 4. Click "Join Now". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://telefonica.webex.com/telefonica-en/j.php?ED=190324527&UID=1269557702&PW=NYmVkMTA4YTUw&ORT=MiMyMw%3D%3D Minutes document will be available here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYGvLuJjcH3kX_u3sYD3CYV23NQ9NApW-gqSeCe4RQg/edit?hl=en_US I have shared the document with PCC PROPOSED AGENDA 1) General project coordination Feedback on the WP meeting of the previous week. Possible effort movements and adjustment Possible revision on project review report (if required) Exploitation Strategy. Initial considerations. 2) Fiware Architecture Board representative. (We are having some discussions to solve the issue. In any case, we plan to send a detailed profile of the required person asap). Even if the profile will be sent, we still ask you to consider the issue internally and, eventually propose solutions ? I presume you already know what is required to be a AB member) 3) Feeback on PPP Steering Board activities. PPP Scheduling problems and possible actions 5) Scientific Committee. Possible actions and role of the group. Financial constraints. Market Advisory Council 6) Open call approval and related actions 7) AOB ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 4132 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Sun Jan 29 09:19:19 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:19:19 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] thanks Message-ID: Jose, all, On behalf of the IBM team (and I am sure others would support this as well), I would like to thank the Telefonica team for hosting the FI-WARE General Assembly meetings last week in Madrid. We feel that it was very successful, and contributed a lot to the progress within the individual work packages, as well as to the better alignment across work packages. Clearly, good organization and logistics were key to this success. Thanks, Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Mon Jan 30 08:50:35 2012 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:50:35 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: [Fiware-wpl] thanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Juanjo and Jose, I fully support the message by Alex, and thank you and all the people in Telefonica for the organization of the FI-WARE General Assembly. The joint sessions were particularly helpful for our chapter, and believe the same was for the other teams, to go into deeper details of the interaction among the GEs (and the teams as well!). Best Regards Pier Da: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Alex Glikson Inviato: domenica 29 gennaio 2012 09:19 A: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Juanjo Hierro; Miguel Carrillo; jdps at tid.es Cc: Yaron Wolfsthal; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] thanks Jose, all, On behalf of the IBM team (and I am sure others would support this as well), I would like to thank the Telefonica team for hosting the FI-WARE General Assembly meetings last week in Madrid. We feel that it was very successful, and contributed a lot to the progress within the individual work packages, as well as to the better alignment across work packages. Clearly, good organization and logistics were key to this success. Thanks, Alex Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Mon Jan 30 12:24:33 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:24:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] thanks In-Reply-To: <4F267C9D.6070600@eng.it> References: <4F267C9D.6070600@eng.it> Message-ID: Dear Jose, Juanjo, Javier and Miguel, On behalf of France Telecom team, I also would to thank Telefonica's team for their involvement and your effective organization. This General Meeting, and this week in general was a great success for FI-Ware spirit. On behalf also of IoT team, we appreciated a lot all facilities you have provided and had fruitful meetings. Best regards. Thierry Nagellen Program Manager Future Internet Orange Labs Networks & Carriers 905 rue Albert Einstein 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex +33 492 94 52 84 +33 679 85 08 44 New email address: thierry.nagellen at orange.com De : fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Matteo Melideo Envoy? : lundi 30 janvier 2012 12:19 ? : JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Juanjo Hierro; Miguel Carrillo; jdps at tid.es Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-wpl] thanks Dear Juanjo, Jose and All, on behalf of Engineering team, I also want to thank a lot the whole Telefonica's team for the excellent and effective organization of the FI-WARE plenary meeting. All the best and regards, Matteo Il 29/01/2012 09:19, Alex Glikson ha scritto: Jose, all, On behalf of the IBM team (and I am sure others would support this as well), I would like to thank the Telefonica team for hosting the FI-WARE General Assembly meetings last week in Madrid. We feel that it was very successful, and contributed a lot to the progress within the individual work packages, as well as to the better alignment across work packages. Clearly, good organization and logistics were key to this success. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josejimenezdelgado at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 15:38:08 2012 From: josejimenezdelgado at gmail.com (jose jimenez (Google Docs)) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:38:08 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] PCC meeting (fiware-pcc@lists.fi-ware.eu) Message-ID: <001636c92a8a03a20f04b78372bb@google.com> I've shared an item with you: PCC meeting https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYGvLuJjcH3kX_u3sYD3CYV23NQ9NApW-gqSeCe4RQg/edit?invite=CIn5jMcF It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jan 30 12:18:53 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:18:53 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] thanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F267C9D.6070600@eng.it> Dear Juanjo, Jose and All, on behalf of Engineering team, I also want to thank a lot the whole Telefonica's team for the excellent and effective organization of the FI-WARE plenary meeting. All the best and regards, Matteo Il 29/01/2012 09:19, Alex Glikson ha scritto: > Jose, all, > > On behalf of the IBM team (and I am sure others would support this as > well), I would like to thank the Telefonica team for hosting the > FI-WARE General Assembly meetings last week in Madrid. > We feel that it was very successful, and contributed a lot to the > progress within the individual work packages, as well as to the better > alignment across work packages. > Clearly, good organization and logistics were key to this success. > > Thanks, > Alex > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-wpl mailing list > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Mon Jan 30 13:42:12 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:42:12 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Full Open Call details In-Reply-To: <4F26677C.9090203@tid.es> References: <4F26474E.4050101@tid.es> <4F26677C.9090203@tid.es> Message-ID: My question seems more relevant to the pcc, so sending it to the corresponding list.. Dear Juanjo, Can you, please, elaborate on the considerations that led to the funding estimation? The scope of the first open call was very limited, and we have two more open calls, so it would be good to understand what drives our funding decisions/assessments. Thanks, Alex From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 30/01/2012 11:49 AM Subject: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Full Open Call details Sent by: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu FYI. To be commented during our joint WPL/WPA follow-up confcall. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Full Open Call details Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:31:26 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu CC: INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu , JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO , MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO , subsidies at tid.es , Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Hi Arian, Following are the Open Call Details which would be made available on the Open Call web page at the FI-WARE website. Please take a look at them and confirm whether you are Ok: A Guide for applicants which provides guidelines on how proposals should be formulated and describes the evaluation and negotiation process. Please take a close review of this document, because it contains the details on how we would like to approach the call. Particularly, sections 2-5. Detailed list of Epics (tasks) to be considered by submitters when targeting each topic (still under revision, but will be finalized by EOB tomorrow): for the middleware topic: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Common_base_technologies#FI-WARE_Advanced_Middleware for the business modeling topic: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Materializing_Applications/Services_Ecosystem_and_Delivery_Framework_in_FI-WARE#Business_Elements_.26_Business_Models We will establish that the upper limit of funding for the two topics will be 2 Million Euros, of which at least 1 Million Euro will be devoted to the middleware topic and 500 K? will be devoted to the business modelling topic. The Consortium and the Collaboration Agreements will be made accessible to proposers. They will be able to download a excerpt of them from the Open Call web page, excluding sensitive information, provided the click on acceptance of a NDA that will be displayed to them prior to downloading. As described in the guide for applicants, the restrictions on the types of organisations that may submit a proposal will be the same as in FP7 ICT ordinary calls. However, submissions involving just one organization will be allowed and indeed submissions involving large consortiums are discouraged. Rest of details (deadline, email addresses to submit proposals or asking for help, etc) will be published on the Open Call web page as well as the public announcement, despite you will find them also in the Guide for applicants. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 27/01/12 18:27, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Hi, I will only answer the last question. For the rest, I await the Call Details. You may select one proposal if the call asks for just one proposal, if there is no more funding for a second proposal, if there are insufficient above-threshold proposals for funding, etc. The Guidance Notes talk about "no selection" cases, but IMHO the same applies to left-over budgets. Then, you may re-open the call or redistribute the funding to the existing partners. All to be approved by the PO and subject to an amendment. At any time in a project you may decide that you need additional expertise and you can ask somebody to join the consortium. However, the budget of the newcomer has to come from the existing consortium. Of course you can't misuse this mechanism and artificially inflate the budgets of the open call..... Best regards, Arian. From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:16 PM To: ZWEGERS Arian (INFSO) Cc: INFSO-ICT-285248; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO; subsidies at tid.es; BOGLIOLO Annalisa (INFSO); jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Re: URGENT questions regarding the FI-WARE 1st Open Call On 27/01/12 12:27, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: In principle, as long as the proposers agree, you can do a lot during negotiation. However, in ordinary FP7 calls, we do not take a mix and match approach; we are not taking the best parts of two or more proposals and make it a single project. That is a bit what you want to do here. I guess in this case, you only have one successful proposal (which could be a consortium of 1-n partners) per task. It does not make much sense to have one task (one (set of) Generic Enabler(s)) implemented by 2 consortia or by an arbitrarily manufactured combination of 2 consortia. There should be no need for such a thing as taking the best of two proposals. As you know, this is not like in ordinary FP7 calls. In ordinary FP7 calls, a project is not requested to integrate their results in a bigger project or together with other projects. However, this is not the case here. In addition, note that we may find that a proposal is very nice regarding some aspects (they cover very well 3 out of 5 Epics, for example) but is wrongly covering or simply not covering other two. While a second proposal might be very nice regarding these two. Why couldn't we go for the two, one complementing the other ? I believe that the notion of "task" you are thinking about would map better to the individual Epics we will define for each topic in the call. Proposers would have then to explain how they would deal with each task/Epic and how much resources they would need to involve per each. Then, one proposal may be proposing to cover 4 out of 6 Epics (tasks) but evaluators believe they would be good covering 3 of those 4. Another one may be proposing the 6 Epics but evaluators believe they would be good dealing with 3 (the three that the first one didn't cover well). Then we may try to negotiate with the two so that we fund both covering the six. Well, it's your call, but I would be very careful here. The notion of "task" is from the Guidance Notes, which says: "The call may be only be for a single activity, for which only one successful proposer will be selected, or may be that it is for several activities with one or more successful proposer in each. This must be made clear to the proposers in the call information which you will prepare." and "A detailed account of the task or tasks to be carried out, in particular clarifying how many proposers may be successful in each task" Note that the first quote talks about a successful proposer in each activity (i.e. task). It does not talk about a single successful proposer (which could be a consortium of 1-n partners) for a set (>1) of tasks. Just like in our calls, proposers do not submit a single proposal to Obj 1.2 and 1.4, claiming budget from both. Perhaps it is allowed to send in a proposal for a set of tasks, but this needs to be clarified. How would it work in practice? You will have a call for (say) 12 epics. Each epic is a task in the sense of the Guidance Notes. Taking into account the above, a proposer bids on one task. Or, if it is allowed to send in a proposal for a set of tasks, you (arbitrarily, because it will not be clear how each part of such a proposal maps to a task/epic) divide it into a number of tasks. You would have to evaluate proposals for each of the 12 tasks, and select the best for each task. - will there be budgets per task? If so, how are they allocated? If not, how to allocate budgets afterwards? Based on highest evaluation score? - how about dependencies between tasks? Does it make sense to bid for a single epic? If you are going to evaluate per epic, you should allow people to submit proposals for a single epic. A single proposal for multiple tasks will likely have dependencies. A coherent set of proposals from the same consortium for a set of tasks may introduce dependencies as well. It might be more efficient to bid for a set of epics, than for separate epics. - If proposers can bid for one epic, you may get many proposals. That's perhaps not a problem now, but it might be times 5 for the next open call. Let me first explain a bit better how I see it would work (BTW, an approach that has been discussed with the AB and was welcome by the UC projects). Then, at the end, I formulate you a concrete question I need you to answer (so, please, read this message up to its end before replying :-) Each of our topics (and we have two in this Open Call) would map to the concept of Objective in the FP7 Work Program (e.g., Objective 1.2.a)) while our Epics would be like the "target outcomes" that you list within one Objective. As an example, linked to Objective 1.2.a): Intelligent and autonomic management of cloud resources, ensuring agile elastic scalability. Scalable data management strategies, addressing the issues of heterogeneity, consistency, availability, privacy and supporting security. Technologies for infrastructure virtualisation, cross platforms execution as needed for service composition across multiple, heterogeneous environments, autonomous management of hardware and software resources. Interoperability amongst different clouds, portability, protection of data in cloud environments, control of data distribution and latency. Seamless support of mobile, context-aware applications. Energy efficiency and sustainability for software and services on the cloud. Architectures and technologies supporting integration of computing and networking environments; implications of Cloud Computing paradigm on networks Open Source implementations of a software stack for Clouds Obviously, a proposal to the FP7 Call 8 (continuing with the example with Objective 1.2) may be addressing several of the above points. And you typically fund several of them, which overlap on the points they address. The only difference here is that we will require them to work together among them and with the existing partners in FI-WARE, following established FI-WARE procedures/methods and towards a target FI-WARE Product Vision (both being made available to submitters so that they understand that part of the context). Each Epics would map to a "task" (a functionality to be supported) and we would comply with the guidance notes because we would select a proposal per task (indeed, we may select one proposal for several tasks, even for all of them within a topic). But we would not be forced to select one proposal to deal with all the Epics (i.e., tasks). We will ask the proposers to structure their proposal in tasks, each for each Epic and estimate each. Reviewers would be asked to evaluate how each proposal address each task. That would be helpful in the negotiations, in case we want to select several proposals, each taking part of the work. This is not just because we just wanted to make things be more complex. It's because we want to achieve the most for the call. Why can't I select two proposers A and B if I rather believe that both working together will bring the best solution ? Should I miss the opportunity to bring proposer B in, when I recognize it brings the best solution for some of the Epics, just because they don't have the most complete solution ? That's the rationale. On the other hand, we are going to ask for a number of functions (Epics) that I honestly do not expect anyone will be able to cover completely (overall for the middleware topic). Besides, I don't want that a potential proposer refuses to go to the Open Call just because they believe they cannot cover all the Epics. Being able to select more than one proposal is a need. Note that the above proposal is not much difference than asking for a proposal by Epic. But that would be non-sense, from my point of view, because all the proposals a proposer would submit will have a lot of stuff repeated, meaning they would have a lot of repeated stuff to be read by reviewers. I would be very careful here. You should really think these things through and should not think too much about measures that the EC is not taking either. We did not select two winners in the Obj 1.7 call and merge the two, decrease funding enormously for half the partners in both proposals. It all comes down to clearly defining the call details, so to avoid highly subjective measures afterwards. I see you concern, but I saw a way to deal with what is needed, while avoiding to be highly subjective. Essentially, we will ask submitters (in the GfA) to structure their description of work based on the Epics that we will detail, defining tasks for each and estimating the costs associated to them. Then we will ask evaluators to provide an evaluation per task of each of the proposal. Based on the neutral evaluation of reviewers, we will have an objective input about how negotiations may be carried out. That is indeed like splitting one proposal (for a set of tasks) into separate proposals, one for each task/epic. You would not even want to allow proposers to submit one proposal for a set of tasks. You need to be very clear on the level for which you ask proposals, either on topic (only 2) or on epic (10-20?), and evaluation needs to be accordingly. You can't call for proposals on topics and then evaluate on epics, but that seems to be what you want to do. That is not very transparent. Anyway, it's your call, but I would go for two tasks (since there are two topics), and one winner per task. Apparently, this is also Jose's understanding. You ask for proposals that cover the complete task (i.e. all epics in that topic), and one task only. In case certain epics are not well covered, you might want to call for them in the next open call. The Guidance Notes also foresee that the budget for the "missing parts" are redistributed to the existing consortium, which then may decide to invite an additional partner (without open call). This approach is much more practical. See the answer above. What do you see there that is fundamentally wrong ? I will take a new look at the guidance notes to check what they say regarding the "missing parts". If I understand it correct ... would this mean that I may select one proposal (let's say that one that covers the best most of the Epics) and then invite some of the partners of other proposals (without open call) because we like the way they proposed to approach those parts we don't like how are being covered by the winning proposal ? Look forward your feedback. Cheers, -- Juanjo Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "FI-WARE_Open_Calls_Guide_for_applicants_v4.docx" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 30 16:21:46 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:21:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Full Open Call details In-Reply-To: References: <4F26474E.4050101@tid.es> <4F26677C.9090203@tid.es> Message-ID: <4F26B58A.5060009@tid.es> On 30/01/12 13:42, Alex Glikson wrote: My question seems more relevant to the pcc, so sending it to the corresponding list.. Dear Juanjo, Can you, please, elaborate on the considerations that led to the funding estimation? To be honest, we proposed the value and shared it with others, including the AB and IMHO the FI-WARE WPLs/WPAs, and nobody complained ... But let me elaborate on how I came with the initially proposed values ... I have shared this rationale with some of you but not all, I have to confess. My initial thought was that both topics would be typically the subject of a STREP project proposal in an ordinary FP7 ICT Call. The middleware topic is big enough for a medium-sized STREP. I position the BM&BE management component more as a kind of small STREP. Medium-sized STREPs use to ask for 3M? of funding, while a small STREP would be more along the line of the 2M? of funding. This is for STREP projects that are 36 months long. Here, the assumption is that the projects will be only 19 months long (we have to assume that the new beneficiaries would join the FI-WARE consortia on September 2012 and would keep working until the end of the project. This lead to a first calculation of funding as follows: * middleware topic initial estimation of funding = 19/36 * 3 M? = 1,58 M? * BM&BE topic initial estimation of funding = 19/36 * 2 M? = 1,05 M? Then, from here, I assume that there are a number of activities that would be part of an ordinary proposal to a FP7 ICT call that will not apply here because are already assumed by the FI-WARE project: * A % of the activities that in an ordinary project proposal would deal with experimentation could be assumed to be already covered in the FI-WARE Testbed WP. The submitters only have to estimate the effort needed to integrate their results in the testbed and support the integration testing. * A significant % of the activities related to both Communication, Collaboration and Dissemination as well as Exploitation and Standardization could be assumed as already covered by the corresponding WPs in FI-WARE This lead me to estimate that I should apply some reduction of the numbers above, say it of the 20%, then round them: * middleware topic final estimation of funding = 80% * 1,58 M? = 1,264 M? => 1,2 M? * BM&BE topic final estimation of funding = 80% * 1,05 M? = 0,84 M? => 0,8 M? * total = 2 M? Of course, these are upper limits in my opinion. That's why we have always talked about maximum funding. Given said that, according to the rules of Open Calls, we have to provide some distribution of the funding between the two topics. Instead of saying that we will assign 1,2 M? and 0,8 M? respectively, I thought it was a better idea to provide a estimation of what would be the funding that would be at least assigned to each topic, similarly to what the FP7 Work Programe typically does when distribution of funding among STREPs and IPs is estimated. This may give us some flexibility and, why not, save some money if adding all the selected proposals we go below the 2M?. The scope of the first open call was very limited, and we have two more open calls, so it would be good to understand what drives our funding decisions/assessments. Our funding decisions/assessments are base on pure estimations but with some rationale behind them as you see above. Hope the explanations provided in this email help ... What is true is that nobody had complained about this before, and the target funding figures had been shared long time ago ... Best regards, -- Juanjo Thanks, Alex From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 30/01/2012 11:49 AM Subject: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Full Open Call details Sent by: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ FYI. To be commented during our joint WPL/WPA follow-up confcall. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Full Open Call details Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:31:26 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu CC: INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu , JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO , MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO , subsidies at tid.es , Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu , jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Hi Arian, Following are the Open Call Details which would be made available on the Open Call web page at the FI-WARE website. Please take a look at them and confirm whether you are Ok: * A Guide for applicants which provides guidelines on how proposals should be formulated and describes the evaluation and negotiation process. Please take a close review of this document, because it contains the details on how we would like to approach the call. Particularly, sections 2-5. * Detailed list of Epics (tasks) to be considered by submitters when targeting each topic (still under revision, but will be finalized by EOB tomorrow): * for the middleware topic: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Common_base_technologies#FI-WARE_Advanced_Middleware * for the business modeling topic: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Materializing_Applications/Services_Ecosystem_and_Delivery_Framework_in_FI-WARE#Business_Elements_.26_Business_Models * We will establish that the upper limit of funding for the two topics will be 2 Million Euros, of which at least 1 Million Euro will be devoted to the middleware topic and 500 K? will be devoted to the business modelling topic. The Consortium and the Collaboration Agreements will be made accessible to proposers. They will be able to download a excerpt of them from the Open Call web page, excluding sensitive information, provided the click on acceptance of a NDA that will be displayed to them prior to downloading. As described in the guide for applicants, the restrictions on the types of organisations that may submit a proposal will be the same as in FP7 ICT ordinary calls. However, submissions involving just one organization will be allowed and indeed submissions involving large consortiums are discouraged. Rest of details (deadline, email addresses to submit proposals or asking for help, etc) will be published on the Open Call web page as well as the public announcement, despite you will find them also in the Guide for applicants. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 27/01/12 18:27, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Hi, I will only answer the last question. For the rest, I await the Call Details. You may select one proposal if the call asks for just one proposal, if there is no more funding for a second proposal, if there are insufficient above-threshold proposals for funding, etc. The Guidance Notes talk about "no selection" cases, but IMHO the same applies to left-over budgets. Then, you may re-open the call or redistribute the funding to the existing partners. All to be approved by the PO and subject to an amendment. At any time in a project you may decide that you need additional expertise and you can ask somebody to join the consortium. However, the budget of the newcomer has to come from the existing consortium. Of course you can't misuse this mechanism and artificially inflate the budgets of the open call..... Best regards, Arian. ________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:16 PM To: ZWEGERS Arian (INFSO) Cc: INFSO-ICT-285248; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO; subsidies at tid.es; BOGLIOLO Annalisa (INFSO); jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Re: URGENT questions regarding the FI-WARE 1st Open Call On 27/01/12 12:27, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: In principle, as long as the proposers agree, you can do a lot during negotiation. However, in ordinary FP7 calls, we do not take a mix and match approach; we are not taking the best parts of two or more proposals and make it a single project. That is a bit what you want to do here. I guess in this case, you only have one successful proposal (which could be a consortium of 1-n partners) per task. It does not make much sense to have one task (one (set of) Generic Enabler(s)) implemented by 2 consortia or by an arbitrarily manufactured combination of 2 consortia. There should be no need for such a thing as taking the best of two proposals. As you know, this is not like in ordinary FP7 calls. In ordinary FP7 calls, a project is not requested to integrate their results in a bigger project or together with other projects. However, this is not the case here. In addition, note that we may find that a proposal is very nice regarding some aspects (they cover very well 3 out of 5 Epics, for example) but is wrongly covering or simply not covering other two. While a second proposal might be very nice regarding these two. Why couldn't we go for the two, one complementing the other ? I believe that the notion of "task" you are thinking about would map better to the individual Epics we will define for each topic in the call. Proposers would have then to explain how they would deal with each task/Epic and how much resources they would need to involve per each. Then, one proposal may be proposing to cover 4 out of 6 Epics (tasks) but evaluators believe they would be good covering 3 of those 4. Another one may be proposing the 6 Epics but evaluators believe they would be good dealing with 3 (the three that the first one didn't cover well). Then we may try to negotiate with the two so that we fund both covering the six. Well, it's your call, but I would be very careful here. The notion of "task" is from the Guidance Notes, which says: "The call may be only be for a single activity, for which only one successful proposer will be selected, or may be that it is for several activities with one or more successful proposer in each. This must be made clear to the proposers in the call information which you will prepare." and "A detailed account of the task or tasks to be carried out, in particular clarifying how many proposers may be successful in each task" Note that the first quote talks about a successful proposer in each activity (i.e. task). It does not talk about a single successful proposer (which could be a consortium of 1-n partners) for a set (>1) of tasks. Just like in our calls, proposers do not submit a single proposal to Obj 1.2 and 1.4, claiming budget from both. Perhaps it is allowed to send in a proposal for a set of tasks, but this needs to be clarified. How would it work in practice? You will have a call for (say) 12 epics. Each epic is a task in the sense of the Guidance Notes. Taking into account the above, a proposer bids on one task. Or, if it is allowed to send in a proposal for a set of tasks, you (arbitrarily, because it will not be clear how each part of such a proposal maps to a task/epic) divide it into a number of tasks. You would have to evaluate proposals for each of the 12 tasks, and select the best for each task. - will there be budgets per task? If so, how are they allocated? If not, how to allocate budgets afterwards? Based on highest evaluation score? - how about dependencies between tasks? Does it make sense to bid for a single epic? If you are going to evaluate per epic, you should allow people to submit proposals for a single epic. A single proposal for multiple tasks will likely have dependencies. A coherent set of proposals from the same consortium for a set of tasks may introduce dependencies as well. It might be more efficient to bid for a set of epics, than for separate epics. - If proposers can bid for one epic, you may get many proposals. That's perhaps not a problem now, but it might be times 5 for the next open call. Let me first explain a bit better how I see it would work (BTW, an approach that has been discussed with the AB and was welcome by the UC projects). Then, at the end, I formulate you a concrete question I need you to answer (so, please, read this message up to its end before replying :-) Each of our topics (and we have two in this Open Call) would map to the concept of Objective in the FP7 Work Program (e.g., Objective 1.2.a)) while our Epics would be like the "target outcomes" that you list within one Objective. As an example, linked to Objective 1.2.a): * Intelligent and autonomic management of cloud resources, ensuring agile elastic scalability. Scalable data management strategies, addressing the issues of heterogeneity, consistency, availability, privacy and supporting security. * Technologies for infrastructure virtualisation, cross platforms execution as needed for service composition across multiple, heterogeneous environments, autonomous management of hardware and software resources. * Interoperability amongst different clouds, portability, protection of data in cloud environments, control of data distribution and latency. * Seamless support of mobile, context-aware applications. * Energy efficiency and sustainability for software and services on the cloud. * Architectures and technologies supporting integration of computing and networking environments; implications of Cloud Computing paradigm on networks * Open Source implementations of a software stack for Clouds Obviously, a proposal to the FP7 Call 8 (continuing with the example with Objective 1.2) may be addressing several of the above points. And you typically fund several of them, which overlap on the points they address. The only difference here is that we will require them to work together among them and with the existing partners in FI-WARE, following established FI-WARE procedures/methods and towards a target FI-WARE Product Vision (both being made available to submitters so that they understand that part of the context). Each Epics would map to a "task" (a functionality to be supported) and we would comply with the guidance notes because we would select a proposal per task (indeed, we may select one proposal for several tasks, even for all of them within a topic). But we would not be forced to select one proposal to deal with all the Epics (i.e., tasks). We will ask the proposers to structure their proposal in tasks, each for each Epic and estimate each. Reviewers would be asked to evaluate how each proposal address each task. That would be helpful in the negotiations, in case we want to select several proposals, each taking part of the work. This is not just because we just wanted to make things be more complex. It's because we want to achieve the most for the call. Why can't I select two proposers A and B if I rather believe that both working together will bring the best solution ? Should I miss the opportunity to bring proposer B in, when I recognize it brings the best solution for some of the Epics, just because they don't have the most complete solution ? That's the rationale. On the other hand, we are going to ask for a number of functions (Epics) that I honestly do not expect anyone will be able to cover completely (overall for the middleware topic). Besides, I don't want that a potential proposer refuses to go to the Open Call just because they believe they cannot cover all the Epics. Being able to select more than one proposal is a need. Note that the above proposal is not much difference than asking for a proposal by Epic. But that would be non-sense, from my point of view, because all the proposals a proposer would submit will have a lot of stuff repeated, meaning they would have a lot of repeated stuff to be read by reviewers. I would be very careful here. You should really think these things through and should not think too much about measures that the EC is not taking either. We did not select two winners in the Obj 1.7 call and merge the two, decrease funding enormously for half the partners in both proposals. It all comes down to clearly defining the call details, so to avoid highly subjective measures afterwards. I see you concern, but I saw a way to deal with what is needed, while avoiding to be highly subjective. Essentially, we will ask submitters (in the GfA) to structure their description of work based on the Epics that we will detail, defining tasks for each and estimating the costs associated to them. Then we will ask evaluators to provide an evaluation per task of each of the proposal. Based on the neutral evaluation of reviewers, we will have an objective input about how negotiations may be carried out. That is indeed like splitting one proposal (for a set of tasks) into separate proposals, one for each task/epic. You would not even want to allow proposers to submit one proposal for a set of tasks. You need to be very clear on the level for which you ask proposals, either on topic (only 2) or on epic (10-20?), and evaluation needs to be accordingly. You can't call for proposals on topics and then evaluate on epics, but that seems to be what you want to do. That is not very transparent. Anyway, it's your call, but I would go for two tasks (since there are two topics), and one winner per task. Apparently, this is also Jose's understanding. You ask for proposals that cover the complete task (i.e. all epics in that topic), and one task only. In case certain epics are not well covered, you might want to call for them in the next open call. The Guidance Notes also foresee that the budget for the "missing parts" are redistributed to the existing consortium, which then may decide to invite an additional partner (without open call). This approach is much more practical. See the answer above. What do you see there that is fundamentally wrong ? I will take a new look at the guidance notes to check what they say regarding the "missing parts". If I understand it correct ... would this mean that I may select one proposal (let's say that one that covers the best most of the Epics) and then invite some of the partners of other proposals (without open call) because we like the way they proposed to approach those parts we don't like how are being covered by the winning proposal ? Look forward your feedback. Cheers, -- Juanjo ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "FI-WARE_Open_Calls_Guide_for_applicants_v4.docx" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: