On 03/05/13 06:49, Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote:
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.
It is unclear to me whether you only comply about making the marketplace be part of that package or not. To be hones, my opinion is that we have to distinguish between a GE being "usable" and "useful". In you want my honest opinion, I may agree that the marketplace alone might be usable but I have serious doubts it will be useful (at least with the current functionality today) ... but, anyhow, I'm fine with keeping it separate. I'll wait to hear Torsten's opinion if you don't mind.
What about keeping the package that gathers together the store, RSS and the BM&BE editors ? My only intention is to make it easy to Use Case projects the decision about planned usage of a given GE or package of related GEs. Again, a good example was the Cloud chapter. Most of the UC projects in phase 1 understood how to respond to the question: would you use the part of the FI-WARE Cloud functionality that has to do with enabling you to create VMs ? It had been much more difficult for them to understand what to do with the SM GE or the DCRM GE, for instance. That would mean understanding the different components that make up the FI-WARE Cloud architecture, when the real fact is that they don't care so much about it, they mostly care about what they can do as users (application providers). Similarly, it would be easier for you to answer what you want to use of Amazon Web Services rather that what you plan to use of Amanzon Web Services' Architecture.
Another hint I use is to think about what are the GEs for which it would make sense to perform training in a joint session. There are GEs that can be clearly explained standalone in a webinar. However, there are other GEs for which it would make much more sense to perform a joint session. From that perspective, I tend to link rows in the table with what it could match a training session/webinar.
Again, this are my thoughts and I just training to make a form that can easily be understood and completed by UC projects.
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.
The third sheet has to do with the 2nd Release of FI-WARE. As far as I understand, but Miguel can correct me if I'm wrong, we have only committed to deliver the software and accompanying documentation of the minor release 2.2. A different story is whether it will be deployed on the FI-WARE Testbed and has been made available by end of April (or during May) or not. I understand that there was flexibility in the decision but I may be wrong. I didn't want to commit to availability of release 2.2 on the FI-WARE Testbed for all GEs.
However, WPs are free to update the column "Planned 1st Deployment / Next Update" as to reflect a date earlier than July 31 if they are planning to deploy minor release 2.2 on the Testbed and make it available on the Testbed.
Besides this, one of the messages we will pass to the UC projects is that the FI-WARE Testbed IS ALREADY AVAILABLE and Release 1 is already deployed there. Therefore, looking at the column "Already in 1st release (Y/N/P)" they can figure out whether they can use it already or not.
In summary, this is what we will explain to UC projects:
* If the column "Already in 1st release (Y/N/P)" is marked as "Y", the GEi in question was part of FI-WARE Release 1 and is already available in the FI-WARE Testbed. Therefore, please start making hands on it.
* The date at the column "Planned 1st Deployment / Next Update" has the following meaning:
* If the column "Already in 1st release (Y/N/P)" is marked as "Y", it then contains the date at which an update of the FI-WARE GEi is planned on the FI-WARE Testbed, in order to incorporate developed functionality planned in the 2nd Release. That update will take place for sure in July 31st, but may come earlier for some FI-WARE GEis which will be updated in the FI-WARE Testbed once minor release 2.2 was closed. We will update the value of this column accordingly during the next week.
* If the column "Already in 1st release (Y/N/P)" is marked as "N", it then contains the date at which a first release of the FI-WARE GEi is planned on the FI-WARE Testbed. The FI-WARE GEi will be available for sure in July 31st, but it may come earlier for some FI-WARE GEis which will be deployed in the FI-WARE Testbed once minor release 2.2 was closed. We will update the value of this column accordingly during the next week.
BTW, the "P" in "Already in 1st release (Y/N/P)" means "Partially". There is no "P" in any cell now, but just in case you would need it to better reflect the status.
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.
Ok, thanks for rising it up. Honestly I didn't have time to verify the column. I'll do it as soon as possible today.
Can you please change the table accordingly?
Regarding you first point, I'll wait for Torsten regarding the package that would bring together the store, RSS and BM&BE. I have separated the marketplace already.
Regarding your second point, I hope that my explanations are enough as to keep current approach.
Regarding the third point. Yes, sure.
Thanks for your valuable feedback.
-- Juanjo
Thanks and best,
/Thorsten
From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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<mailto:thierry.nagellen at orange.com>
Cc: stefano de panfilis; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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
________________________________
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/20130503/8a871da1/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy