[Fiware-wpa] [Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-pcc] Requirements on phase 2 projects to take into account during negotiations

[Davide Dalle Carbonare]

Dear Thierry, all
     I agree with your comments and for the first one I add that an 
option may be to create a
library of symbols representing FI-WARE GEs that can be used to produce 
a high level
architecture with a common language ... as what we've done with FMC 
notation.
this "FI-WARE GEs library" may be made available as ppt/odp template, 
yED palette, ...

BR
Davide

On 18/01/2013 08:47, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Here are my comments :
>
> ·This kind of validation should happen at the Architecture Board level 
> first, but it is not enough as WP Architects are not involved is this 
> body. But to ask more from the new projects, we should propose quickly 
> a framework on how their architecture should be described. To me, we 
> have also a lack on our whole architecture so we cannot just require 
> more from the new projects that what we have today. We had this 
> discussion several times and also with the reviewers so do we propose 
> to the new projects to use the same tools than us to describe their 
> architecture? It should be the first step to share a common technical 
> vision.
>
> ·I would be a bit more flexible on the validation process because they 
> will not use only Fi-Ware GE but also Specific Enablers so do we have 
> to spend lots of time also to understand this part of their 
> architecture? If yes, we have to dedicate some resources for that 
> explicitly.
>
> ·We agree to manage some PoC with the testbed so I think it is 
> difficult to say that we will postpone trials when Fi-Ware will stop! 
> Except if you have some news that we will continue during the 3^rd 
> phase and that all partners involved in Fi-Ware will be there also... 
> If by production you understand that end-users will be able to use new 
> services, I agree that our testbed and the Open Innovation Lab will 
> not support correctly what the new projects should run. But in this 
> case it is more a point for Xifi than for FiWare.
>
> I have no major comments on the KPI you propose. They are a good 
> starting point for the negotiation.
>
> BR
>
> Thierry
>
> *De :*fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu 
> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *De la part de* Juanjo Hierro
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 17 janvier 2013 18:27
> *À :* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; 
> fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu
> *Objet :* [Fiware-pcc] Requirements on phase 2 projects to take into 
> account during negotiations
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>   We at Telefonica believe that FI-WARE should play an active role 
> during negotiations of projects of the phase 2 of the FI-PPP.   In 
> this respect, we would like to come up with a number of requirements 
> that we believe should be taken into account while negotiating 
> projects in the phase 2 of the FI-PPP, i.e., probably become part of 
> the DoW associated to those projects.
>
>   Here it is our first input on the matter that we have already shared 
> with the EC.   They are still defined in a very high-level, however I 
> believe they are described well enough as to understand them:
>
>   * "Physical" Architecture of Trial projects should be validated by
>     both the Capacity Building and FI-WARE projects.   We should avoid
>     that each Trial ends up with a dedicated FI-WARE Instance deployed
>     on their own infrastructure, for instance.   If there are
>     opportunities to use some of the GEis "as a Service" from a common
>     shared FI-WARE Instance or network of FI-WARE Instances, operated
>     by the Capacity Building Project, that should be the path to go.  
>     Trials should make their case about why dedicated FI-WARE GEis
>     have to be deployed instead.   While consensus is highly
>     desirable, I believe that the Capacity Building project and
>     FI-WARE should take the role of approving what the Trials will
>     propose and be able to require changes.
>   * Software Architecture of Trial projects should be validated by
>     FI-WARE to make sure that Trials take the most that is possible
>     from FI-WARE.   We should avoid that Trials develop/use enablers
>     that could be covered by existing FI-WARE GEs.   FI-WARE should
>     take the role of approving what Trials propose and require changes.
>   * Trials projects should be planned so that no one enters into
>     "production" until the Technology Foundation continuation project
>     has started.   Being realistic, it would be highly desirable that
>     projects don't enter into production until September 2014.   It is
>     worth considering whether duration of Trial projects should be
>     adjusted accordingly, so that they  last 30 months instead of 24
>     months (which is what we suspect most of them have planned).
>   * Trials projects should be requested to offer to 3rd party
>     developers the opportunity to run their applications on the
>     infrastructure the Trials will setup together with the Capacity
>     Building project.  In this respect, Trials and the Capacity
>     Building projects should be asked to design how their operating
>     infrastructure will be connected to the FI-WARE Open Innovation
>     Lab.   We should allow that an application that has been
>     experimented/tested in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab finds the
>     way to be tried with real users thanks to the infrastructures that
>     Trials and the Capacity Buidling project will setup together.
>
>
>   We would like to gather your feedback on them as well as collect any 
> additional requirement you believe it would be worth to add.   I 
> believe this is a discussion that we can carry out off-line effectively.
>
>   As far as we understand, CONCORD is developing a draft on KPIs to be 
> asked to UC trials in phase 2 and therefore to be included in the DoW 
> ... but I haven't seen anything that I can share at this point.   A 
> rather quickly list of KPIs that we have defined and sent to the EC 
> (indeed very much related with the above requirements) are the following:
>
>  1. number of FI-WARE GEs being used
>  2. number of applications from third parties experimented in the
>     FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab that have been able to run integrated
>     with the trial developed by the project
>  3. number of FI-WARE GEs being used that are deployed and offered "as
>     a Service" on shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity
>     Building project
>  4. number of VMs allocated for execution of trial application
>     components on FI-WARE Cloud provided as part of shared/federated
>     facilities provided by the Capacity Building project
>  5. object storage capacity allocated for usage by trial application
>     components on FI-WARE Cloud provided as part of shared/federated
>     facilities provided by the Capacity Building project
>  6. average number of requests per day to FI-WARE GE APIs during
>     execution of trials
>  7. average number of requests per month to FI-WARE GE APIs during
>     execution of trials
>
>   Values of all these KPIs should be benchmarked against:
>
>   * min value established as minimum target at start of phase 2
>   * average value for UC trials in phase 2
>   * value in demo application to be developed by FI-WARE (this only
>     applicable to KPI no. 1)
>
>
>   Again, your feedback on them and input regarding additional KPIs is 
> more than welcome.
>
>   Our goal is that FI-WARE arrives with a presentation on our final 
> requirements and KPIs during the workshop negotiation on Feb 4-5, 
> ideally with a concrete draft text to be included in the DoWs of new 
> projects in phase 2.
>
>   Cheers,
>
>
> -- Juanjo
>   
> -------------
> Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
> website:www.tid.es  <http://www.tid.es>
> email:jhierro at tid.es  <mailto: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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede 
> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico 
> en el enlace situado más 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20130118/1c52badc/attachment.html>