[Fiware-wpl] VERY URGENT: Observations on the result of the review of FI-WARE within one month of reception of the review report letter EXPIRES tomorrow

[Juanjo Hierro]

Hi,

  This is the wording that I would propose (comments on wording, please accompanied with concrete editing proposals, are welcome):

==
Dear PO and reviewers,

  According to Article II.23.8 of the grant agreement, we can make observations on the result of the review of our project within one month of reception of the review report letter.   This email elaborates on the observation we would like to submit regarding review of deliverables linked to Open Specifications.

  Right after reception of the review report, we have carried out a number of peer-reviews (still under way) targeted to answer the concerns expressed by reviewers.    This is one activity we have assigned the highest priority because we agree with reviewers that there is a critical need to release a complete and comprehensive set of Generic Enabler (GE) Open Specifications in FI-WARE.

  In the review report, it is actually stated that the delivered Open Specifications were "inadequate for communication and unified understanding with the Use Case projects, are not
of the required quality to serve the needs of those projects, and do not provide sufficient basis for practical implementation by software developers"

  One of the conclusions reached after the first peer-reviews that were conducted was that it seems like there may have been a mismatch between what reviewers were expecting to be the contents of each FI-WARE GE Chapter's Open Specification deliverable and what it was actually formally delivered, considering the deliverable standalone.   However, this didn't mean that the missing contents were not already there on the public, published and available to the Use Case projects and the general public.

   FI-WARE deliverables were structured in a manner that would allow sharing information with Use Case projects as soon as it was available, without waiting for having all the details fixed.   The complete Open Specification of a given FI-WARE GE comprises, following some best practices of existing standards, a table of contents like the following:

  1.  Overview
     *   Introduction
     *   Usage Example scenarios
  2.  Basic Concepts (this may include a description of the underlying conceptual model)
  3.  Reference Architecture
  4.  Main interactions
     *   (here, a description of the external behavior exposed by the GE will be provided and this would be essentially covered by explaining how interactions with the GE, through the APIs it will support, are expected to work)
  5.  Basic Design Principles
  6.  Detailed Open API specifications
  7.  References

   The first 5 points and point 7 were provided as soon as possible making it part of the FI-WARE Architecture deliverable, because that way we could share with UC projects part of the specifications as soon as possible, without waiting for the finalization of the detailed API specifications.    Therefore, when we delivered the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications deliverable we just submitted the Detailed Open API Specifications.    Now we realize that we made a mistake not explaining this, but at least we would like to explain what we did, in the hope this will improve the overall judgement of the work that we did.    In the light of this explanations we would also kindly ask the reviewers and PO to consider reduction of the costs rejection formula that was announced.

  Having said all this, we would like to share with you that we are anyway performing a deep peer-review of the contents of the specifications (considering the whole table of contents described above).    Sure there are point to improve, and we have identified some of them already, so that we are implementing them as soon as possible.    Besides this review of contents, we plan to re-structure the contents of the wiki so that we can produce a complete .pdf per each FI-WARE GE, comprising the table of contents above.   We hope this will prevent other audience for getting the same impression as reviewers got.

  Best regards,

==

-------------
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 28/09/12 08:53, Juanjo Hierro wrote:
Hi all,

  I would need a explicit answer from every of you by EOB TODAY, so please don't forget to answer.

  According to Article II.23.8 of the grant agreement, we can make observations on the result of the review of our project within one month of reception of the review report letter (attached for your convenience)

  After the first and second peer-review of the FI-WARE Architecture and Open Specifications, not only me and TID but several of us have reached the conclusion that the reviewers didn't consider all the information that was already there on the Wik when they were evaluating the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications.   Actually, architecture description of the GEs seem to be covering part of what the reviewers had expected in a complete specification.   What we delivered as the deliverable didn't include this but was just what was needed to be provided, in addtion to what was already there as part of the FI-WARE Architecture Specifications, regarding specifications of APIs, languages, etc.

  In my honest opinion, we do not risk anything sending this observation because:

  *   we would explain that:
     *   we believe there were actually much more information regarding specifications of FI-WARE GEs than what the reviewers have evaluated (e.g., the part that was common to the FI-WARE Architecture documentation), and clarifying this should not be harmful but may help to explain we have actually worked hard in producing something complete
     *   we recognize that we failed in explaining this when the open specifications were delivered, so we are actually recognizing it was not their fault that they didn't find the information.
  *   we would also explain that we plan to resubmit the specifications so that the issue is solved and third parties do not fall also in the same problem (here, the kind of changes that were being proposed in a recent email by Uwe are in this direction)
  *   last but not least, we would tell them that we are carrying out peer-reviews of the contents anyway, to make sure that content-wise, the specifications are as much complete as possible.

  Additionally, we may add that we are going to submit to them a report on how the different check-points are being addressed.   This may help to reinforce we are taking their review report very much in consideration.

  The worst we can get is a 'not accepted".   I don't believe that, if we deliver the right words, we will get any problem.

  I will come with a specific text proposal along this morning, but prior to do this, I would like to start collecting your feedback.

  I have copied the whole list of FI-WARE WPLs/WPAs since some of them may not be part of the FI-WARE PCC mailing list and I believe it was fair to let them object if they believe there are good reasons for doing so.   I believe we don't need to involve the rest of the consortia since this a) would take too much time and b) IMHO is not that much a risk as stated above.

  Looking forward your quick answer

  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






________________________________

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20120928/3fa022fa/attachment.html>