Dear Juanjo, my two cents in lined ... Br, M. Il 20/11/2012 21:45, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto: > Hi, > > Please find below the comments and requests that Arian has just sent > to us regarding the agenda for the review (only 5 days before :-) > > I have to confess that I got crazy in a first approach when I read > it ... but then I calmed down and I believe we can face it in a > constructive way :-): > > * Points 2), 4) and even 5) may be taken as part of we had to > prepare as presentation regarding checkpoints 2 and 5 ... I > don't see a particular issue with that ... It's true that some > questions may be tough to respond but better to know them in > advance than having to respond to them by surprise at the > review. Actually, they are providing here valuable information > that should help us to prepare better the part of the > presentations that was covering those checkpoints. > * I have to confess that point 3) was totally unexpected ... > However, I believe it should fit pretty well within the > presentation on FI-WARE Value Proposition. Indeed, there was > valuable content that we generated in that deliverable that should > have taken into account for that presentation (and may have even > taken into account already) > * Regarding the live demo, I believe that we should respond giving > them more details about the planned demo, explaining Arian and > reviewers that what we are trying to achieve with the demo is much > more ambitious than going through isolated demos of FI-WARE GEs > standalone "in a row" ... Our planned live demo explains how > different GEs can be used for the same application and also > elaborates on how different phases in the lifecycle of an > application are supported (note that Cloud or marketplace aspects > are just ignored) ... Probably they were not expecting such a > complete demo but a sequence of demos of some of the GEs ... > therefore they were just asking to choose which ones ... I guess > that we may convince them that what we propose is better. > Alternatively, we may program a short webinar of some of the GEs > not presented in the demo they are asking for. I would bet for > the Proton CEP. I wonder whether one on the Mobile CEP Engine is > also feasible (I have checked and the webinar on the IoT Gateway > Data Handling GE is not planned until Dec 4th ...) Honestly > speaking, I believe it doesn't make sense to plan one for the > Ericsson Composition Engine or the Mashup Factory given the fact > that sustainability of both is currently in question. > * Point 6) is probably the more tricky point ... what would you > interpret that they are expecting when they refer to "Outlook for > FI-WARE" ? Aren't we addressing this to some extend in the > presentation regarding Explotation or also the one on "Value > Proposition" ? > > > Your response to the following questions is needed so that we can > elaborate a response to Arian: > > * Stefano: do you think we can address well points 2, 4 and 5 asked > by Arian and the reviewers within the presentation regarding > checkpoints 2 and 5 ? I believe so but wanted to check your > opinion. Of course, you can count on me for helping to develop > the slides. If you agree, we may respond Arian that those points > are going to be address there. > * SAP and the team working in the presentation regarding the FI-WARE > Value Proposition: may you integrate presentation of the "Third > Party Innovation Deliverable" in that presentation ? If you > agree, we may explain Arian that we were planning to address > presentation of the results of this deliverable in that slot > during the second day but we can elaborate more on it. > * All: would you agree with explaining them what our live demo was > about before hand ? I guess it doesn't harm. > Yes, despite they asked for very precise things to see "including the full set of documentation and other contents associated with that GE available at Month 18 plus relevant issues relating to implementation". Basically they want to have an idea of what a potential user today has in his\her hands to use a GEs. As I reported in my comments in the demoscript file, it is also important to explain why we decided to select those GEs and not others but it is most likely I missed this point. > > * Thierry: Is it feasible to prepare something about the Mobile CEP > Engine with such a short notice ? > * SAP: Does it make sense to prepare a demo regarding the Mashup > Factory or the Ericsson Composition Engine ? I don't believe so > but ... how would you justify it and explain that it would be > better to use the Application Mashup GE ? I believe that they > have just guided their decision based on input from UC projects > regarding the planned usage of GEs (shared spreadsheet) but ... as > far as I know, not only Finest have decided to go for using > WireCloud but also Outsmart ... is this information correct ? I > believe that if we explain that there are at least two UC projects > who have already decided to use it in their design, we can justify > to go for it instead of the ones they propose > * IBM: would it be feasible that Guy makes a presentation on the > Proton CEP, perhaps a webinar that matches some of the two days if > attendance to the review is not feasible ? > * All: wouldn't it make sense to invite Arian and the reviewers to > attend the webinars regarding some of the GEs they refer to ... as > alternative to cover them as part of the live demo ? > Yes, this is a very good idea but I do not think this should be done during the review. > > * All: what is your feeling regarding the "Outlook for FI-WARE" ? > I agree with what written by Thierry and my feeling is that if we will do all these things in the right way, as I believe, we have basically demonstrated that we have done all our homework to pass the review but this does not mean we have a clear outlook about what FI-WARE will be in the future. Even after the FI-PPP ... > 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: RE: FP7-ICT-285248 FI-WARE - Official Invitation to M18 > Review Meeting > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:39:12 +0000 > From: <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> > To: <jhierro at tid.es>, <Vanessa.VANHUMBEECK at ec.europa.eu> > CC: <jimenez at tid.es>, <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, > <msli at icfocus.co.uk>, <irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com>, > <rdifrancesco at ymail.com>, <dgr at whitestein.com>, <mcp at tid.es> > > > > Dear Juanjo, > > Thank you very much for the draft agenda. > > Some changes that we would like to see: > > 1)The live demos (day 1, 10.30 -- 12.15) need to go in detail with at > least 3 GEs "in full", i.e. including the full set of documentation > and other contents associated with that GE available at Month 18 plus > relevant issues relating to implementation), in addition to the "live > demos" already scheduled. The three (or more) GEs should be drawn from > the chapters 3, 5 & 6 and should be the ones which have generated the > greatest interest so far. So, for chapter 3 it would be the Mashup > Factory or the Ericsson Composition Editor, for ch 5 it would be the > Things Mgt GE or the CEP Mobile Manager (as the Backend Device Mgt GE > is not available), and for ch 6 it would be Proactive Technology > Online, the Context Awareness Platform, the Samson broker, or the > Query Broker. > > 2)Somewhere in the agenda the latest status of GE take-up by the Use > Cases, the consortium members themselves, and potentially additional > interests elsewhere needs to be presented. > > 3)Third Party Innovation Enablement is a key deliverable and needs to > be presented. > > 4)Testbed and testing deliverables are also important and should be > presented. It would be good to know how the Test bed actually supports > some of the non-functional capabilities that are listed in the first > release in the Technical Roadmap > > 5)A summary of the status of the validation of the GEs from the Use > Cases and how this is checked back against the requirements needs to > be presented. > > 6)The Closing Statements should include a presentation of Outlook for > FI-WARE from the consortium's viewpoint. > > 7)To accommodate the above items, Day 2 could end later and the 3 > hours planned for Revision of checkpoints could be shorter. > > Best regards, > > Arian > > *From:*Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:21 AM > *To:* VANHUMBEECK Vanessa (CNECT) > *Cc:* jimenez at tid.es; CNECT-ICT-285248; ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); > msli at icfocus.co.uk; irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com; > rdifrancesco at ymail.com; dgr at whitestein.com; mcp at tid.es; jhierro >> > "Juan J. Hierro" > *Subject:* Re: FP7-ICT-285248 FI-WARE - Official Invitation to M18 > Review Meeting > > Dear Arian and Vanessa, dear reviewers, > > Please find enclosed a draft agenda for the project review. > > Best regards, > > -- 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 > > On 07/11/12 10:43, Vanessa.VANHUMBEECK at ec.europa.eu > <mailto:Vanessa.VANHUMBEECK at ec.europa.eu> wrote: > > Dear Mr. Jimenez, > > In accordance with Article II.23 of the contract, and as agreed > with you recently, I hereby inform you of the Commission's > intention to hold a review meeting of the project FP7-ICT-285248 > FI-WARE in Brussels, Belgium on 28^th and 29^th November 2012. > > The meeting will take place in the premises of the European > Commission in avenue de Beaulieu, 1160 Brussels > > Meeting rooms: > > 28^th and 29^th November avenue de Beaulieu BU25 0/S10 > > As agreed with you, the Commission will be assisted by the > following independent experts: > > - Dr Renaud Di Francesco > > - Dr. Dominic Greenwood > > - Ms Man-Sze Li > > - Ms Irena Pavlova > > The objectives of the review are, in particular, to establish: > > ·the degree of fulfillment of the project work plan for the > relevant period and of the related deliverables; > > ·the continued relevance of the objectives and breakthrough > potential with respect to the scientific and industrial state of > the art; > > ·the resources planned and utilized in relation to the achieved > progress, in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, > efficiency and effectiveness; > > ·the management procedures and methods of the project; > > ·the beneficiaries' contributions and integration within the project; > > ·the expected potential impact in scientific, technologic, > economic, competitive and social terms (where relevant), and the > plans for the use and dissemination of results. > > If you have not sent the deliverables for this review period > (months 13 to 18) to the European Commission yet, please do so as > soon as possible and put the experts (see cc) in copy. > > Please send us the draft agenda of this meeting before Friday 9^th > November 2012. > > Please send me the names of the people attending the review before > Friday 23^rd November 2012. > > Should you have any questions before the meeting, please do not > hesitate to contact me. > > Thank you for your co-operation. > > Best Regards, > > Vanessa Vanhumbeeck > > *European Commission* > > DG CONNECT > > Unit E3 -- Net Innovation > > Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 > Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu > <mailto:vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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-wpl/attachments/20121121/d67a7658/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20121121/d67a7658/attachment.vcf>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy