[Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-wpa] Revised version of cockpit on planned usage of GE by UC projects (was Re: Request from Xifi project)

[Sandfuchs, Thorsten]

Hi Juanjo,
My initial thought on the "gathering" of Business Framework GEs: I don't like it - TID is for example not delivering anything right now and the marketplace would be already available and "usable". This picture would be now blurred.
The store, marketplace and the RSS is provided by various partners and even complete different technologies, that would be completely blurred as well.
The marketplace is clearly a separated thing, which is already usable and even completely open source for quite some time.

My second thought on the new table concerning timing: you now give them the impression that they can only start working on the GEs with the end of July. - This is a high risk and I would propose to change this. We are restraining them now towards this date in the future, but in fact they should be able and they need to use us "before" - the original version of the table depicted this fact.
Now they could argue against the EC: FI-WARE only delivered in the end of july the access to ALL of their GEs. Which is not true. In fact it's legal or some other constraints, but we don't wan to restrain them from using us!
As I said: e.g. the marketplace - but as well other components - can be used "now" & at any time.

Third one: the sums are wrong which are given in the 1st and 2nd release of the table - e.g. in the service repository there is on D which is not counted - and potentially more, given the complete table.

Can you please change the table accordingly?

Thanks and best,
                                                                /Thorsten

From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Freitag, 3. Mai 2013 03:13
To: thierry.nagellen at orange.com
Cc: stefano de panfilis; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Revised version of cockpit on planned usage of GE by UC projects (was Re: Request from Xifi project)

Dear all,

  Just to let you know, I have updated the spreadsheet in Google docs in preparation of the AB meeting tomorrow.   You can take a look at it:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqGGeaQGro3fdEd6bGhLQWtNai1jeGN5UnJMeEdxZ0E#gid=8
  There are three sheets there:

  *   FI-WARE GEi (1st Release) planned usage in Phase 1:   collecting info about usage of GEs delivered in FI-WARE Release 1 that UC projects reported in phase 1
  *   FI-WARE GEi (2nd Release) planned usage in Phase 1:   collecting info about planned usage of GEs announced in FI-WARE Release 2 that UC projects reported in phase 1
  *   FI-WARE GEi (2nd Release) planned usage in Phase 2:   which is the info we now have to collect from UC projects in phase 2


  You will notice that I have added new rows regarding FI-WARE GEs in the third sheet.   They match new FI-WARE GEs to be incorporated in Release 2.   I have added a column to label those FI-WARE GEs that were already there in Release 1.

  I filled the values of those UC projects that are continuation of some project(s) in Phase 1.   I did it by extrapolation but of course they will be requested to double-check their input.

  All WPLs/WPAs are asked to check the information provided.   You know that this cockpit is highly visible and will play an important role in the review as well as during coordination with UC projects.

  Specifically, I would like to highlight the following APs:

  *   @All: to double-check that no FI-WARE GE planned in Release 2 is missing
  *   @I2ND: the cockpit is mostly to monitor planned usage of GEs in the FI-WARE Testbed (or deployed locally).   It's a bit unclear to me how to record information about I2ND GEs other than the Proxy.   Those ones more related to the network won't be testable in the Testbed, as far as I understand.   Also I see different possibilities to capture infor about the CDI.   I rather welcome your feedback here.
  *   @Cloud: I still believe, like in Release 1, that it doesn't make sense to ask about planned usage of individual FI-WARE Cloud GEs.  Instead, we can/should ask for specific Cloud functionality and check whether UC projects plan to use it.   I hope you agree with the approach but your feedback is welcome.
  *   @Apps: while I believe that it makes sense to refer to the individual Composition/Mediation GEs, I believe that similarly to Cloud, it doesn't make sense to refer to some of the GEs that define the Business Framework separately, namely, the Marketplace, Store, BM&BE editor and RSS GEs.   Therefore, I have gathered all of them together in a "package".  Then, UC projects can more easily respond whether they plan to use that "functional package" or not, depending on whether they plan to setup some sort of Apps Marketplace or not.   Anyhow, your feedback is welcome.

  Please try to provide your input before end of next week.   We should stabilize its contents by that time.

  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) Coordinator

and 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 23/04/13 16:50, thierry.nagellen at orange.com<mailto:thierry.nagellen at orange.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues

We are currently in a Xifi meeting and they prepare a survey for UC which should target a bit the same things that what we are doing through Architecture Board with UC projects interest into Fi-Ware GE. I've proposed to used the list of GEs available in release 2.2 to be sure to have the right name for each GE.

Do you agree to provide this list? (I hope yes of course) and can I used the spreadsheet in Googledocs for AB  or do we have to update it before to provide it officially to Xifi?

Of course  we should have the same results in Xifi and in the AB but Xifi is also asking in which node they should implement the GE depending the specific trials the UC projects have planned.

Thanks for your support.
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


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

________________________________

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/20130503/3029a614/attachment.html>