Dear Juanjo
here are the TAS contribution to the EPICS:
(See attached file: Backlog Loc_Plform 2011-08-25.xls)
Don't hesitate to comments if necessary.
I will unfortunately not be available tomorrow for the conference.
Best regards.
|---------+------------------------------------>
| | Juanjo Hierro |
| | <jhierro at tid.es> |
| | Envoyé par : |
| | fiware-data-bounces at lists|
| | .fi-ware.eu |
| | |
| | |
| | 10/08/2011 18:52 |
|---------+------------------------------------>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| Pour : "fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu> |
| cc : |
| Objet : [Fiware-data] IMPORTANT Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Hints and examples about entries for the FI-WARE backlog |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
FYI. Hope it will be helpful for the work of each of you taking care of
entries linked to a GE in the backlog.
This input, together with the detailed description of next steps provided
(previous mails sent to the WPLs and WPAs and forwarded to you), should
gather all the information that is necessary so that you can start to
elaborate the entries linked to EPICs for the assets we have agreed to
adopt as baseline for development of the reference implementation of some
of the GEs in our chapter:
Publish/Subscribe Broker GE: here we intend to develop two different
reference implementations, one based on the asset from TI and another
one based on the asset from Orange (unless they agree to join
developments at some point). They should coordinate the creation of
entries in the FI-WARE backlog for this GE, under leadership of TI
(Boris). Note that there may be a) entries that are just relevant
to TI's assets b) entries that are just relevant to Orange's asset c)
entries that are jrelevant to both
Complex Event Processing GE: we intend to develop a reference
implementation based on the asset from IBM. Responsible: Guy
BigData Analysis GE: we intend to develop a reference implementation
based on the asset from Telefonica I+D. Responsible: Juanjo (indeed,
another person will lead this who has just been incorporated and will
catch up during August)
Multimedia analysis GE: we intend to develop a reference
implementation based on the asset from Siemens. Responsible: Peter
Meta-data preprocessing GE: we intend to develop a reference
implementation based on the asset from Siemens. Responsible: Peter
Query Access GE: we intend to develop a reference implementation
based on the asset from Siemens. Responsible: Peter. See notes
below.
Localization Platform GE (SLP component): we intend to develop a
reference implementation based on the asset from Thales.
Responsible: Remi. See notes below
Semantic Annotation GE: we intend to develop a reference
implementation based on the asset from TI. Responsible: Boris
Semantic Application Support GE: we intend to develop a reference
implementation based on the asset from ATOS. Responsible: Tomás ?
Target milestone is August 31st, when we should have been able to gather
a complete and comprehensive set of EPICs (see email below). As an
intermediate milestone, I would like you to send a first take on your side
by August 16th. This will allow me to review them and provide some
feedback.
Unless you believe that we need to have a follow-up confcall this week, I
would skip it for this week. If you have any doubt or concern, please
don't hesitate to share it over the email. This would be more suitable
for me during this period until I get back to the office on August 22nd.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
-------- Original Message --------
Subje [Fiware-wpa] Hints and examples about entries for the FI-WARE
ct: backlog
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:06:46 +0200
From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es>
To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Hi all,
One of the action points that were agreed had to do with providing some
detail examples of what the entries for an EPIC and a User Story (or Story,
for short) in the FI-WARE backlog. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet
where I have included two separate sheets describing:
The template to be used for entries in the backlog. This is an
update of the one you already had where I have addressed some points
that were unresolved or required some clarifications. I have found
also the need to add a new field (Detailed Status).
An example of an EPIC
An example of an User Story
The examples are not "official". I just elaborate them on my own
(although the EPIC was based on an initial proposal made by Fernando López
from TID). They just pretend to serve as example of the level of
"granularity" associated to an EPIC compared to a User Story in an Agile
backlog.
What can be considered at the level of "user story" according to Agile ?
Well ... there is no a black or white frontier between things nor a
mathematical formula you can apply and then determine when something should
be considered an EPIC rather than a User Story. As mentioned in the
presentation on Agile we made at the FI-WARE kick-off meeting, User Stories
have to comply with "INVEST" properties which mean they should be
"Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimatable, Small and Testable".
Some resources that may be helpful in finding out what we mean by INVEST
properties can be found at [1], [2] and even [3] but in general:
Bear in mind that User Stories have to be something "Small" as to be
affordable in a Sprint. Sprints should be of a maximum of two
months in FI-WARE, unitary tests included (I'm even seriously
considering to make them shorter, of about one month, therefore
closer to the spirit of Agile). In general, something that would go
beyond one single sprint should be considered an EPIC.
It should be also detailed enough so that you can say "I understand
what I want well enough that I could think how a test for it could be
designed." This is what means it should be "Testable".
User stories also should be "Estimatable" meaning that it should
contain enough information enabling a developer to make a rough
estimation of how much it would take to develop it (and shouldn't go
beyond the time limits of a sprint :-). In our case, we are
supposed to bring on the table tangible assets per GEs. Therefore,
"Estimatable" means that the corresponding development team should be
able to answer you how much would it take to implement the user story
you are providing. Therefore, you can make a simple test: take one
of your entries, go to the teams, and ask them "how much effort
(roughly) would it take ?" ... if they give you answers like "unless
you give me more details, it's simply impossible ... what you provide
is too vague", then you don't have a user story for sure but probably
an EPIC.
They don't need to have ALL the details nor have everything closed.
There should be details that may be worked out while developing it
(again, bear the duration of sprints in mind, i.e., maximum between
1-2 months). You shouldn't enter into that level of detail at which
you are probably wasting time and unnecessarily delaying development.
But good developers are able to provide accurate estimations without
knowing all details. This is why they should be "Negotiable"
(detailed description may vary/be-refined over time even during
development but without this implying a relevant deviation from the
original estimation)
"Independent" and "Valuable" are also relevant but I guess there may be
many EPICs that would also cope with those properties. That's why I would
make emphasis on the previous points.
Some references (but you may find much more, just search for INVEST
properties for User Stories in Agile or discussions on EPICs vs User
Stories):
[1] -
http://xp123.com/articles/invest-in-good-stories-and-smart-tasks/
[2] -
http://agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/blog/vaibhav/good-user-story-invest
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INVEST_%28mnemonic%29
Themes, are much more high-level or abstract than EPICs. The frontier
between Themes and EPICs is also fuzzy, but is not that relevant as the
frontier between EPICs and User Stories because this last frontier is what
matters to know when you may stop refining. Indeed, we may adopt a
convention regarding what to call Theme and what to call an EPIC. For
example, we may map the notion of "Theme" to the notion of Generic Enabler
in FI-WARE. Therefore, there would be a Theme linked to the
"Publish/Subscribe Broker GE" which establishes as a goal that
"Applications should be able to publish data and subscribe to data of their
interest". The "target usage" text in the FI-WARE Product Vision /
High-level Description deliverable for a given GE may well work as the
content for the description of the corresponding Theme.
Given said this, don't feel too frustrated if you are not able to
identify too many User Stories in a first shot. I believe that we should
feel confident if we end August with a complete and comprehensive set of
EPICs per Generic Enabler. Then, during September, we may focus in trying
to derive a number of User Stories from those EPICs that will enable to
plan the first sprint in FI-WARE (which we should be able to start by early
October)
Please remind that we are supposed to rely the development of the
reference implementation of FI-WARE GEs in a number of assets. We should
concentrate on what will map into development tasks on those assets (so
that they can integrate with other assets, comply with the final standard
open royalty-free specification of interfaces we want them to provide,
incorporate any function that we agree a target reference implementation
must/should offer but our asset still do not offer). Don't focus on
describing things already supported by an asset. Remember: backlog =
work to be done. Review my previous mails on the matter if you have any
doubt.
Please share this with your teams. And don't hesitate to bring on the
table any doubt, concern or comment you may have. Let's share them and
share the answer.
Last but not least, please send back two separate responses:
a) first to Thomas and me, a response confirming that you have
received this email
b) later, to the fiware-wpl and fiware-wpa, an email confirming that
you have read it and you feel like there is no essential obstacle for
moving forward. If you have any initial questions/doubts/comments
you would like to share at the time you send the response, please do
so.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
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[rattachement "Backlog entries
examples by TID 11-08-09.xls" supprimé par Remi Challamel/FR/SPACE] (See
attached file: ATT00001..txt)(See attached file: jhierro.vcf)
_______________________________________________
Fiware-data mailing list
Fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu
http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-data
Meilleures salutations/Cordiali saluti/Best regards
Sales&Marketing -- Project Manager
Tel : fixed: +33 5 34 35 68 21 - cell: +33 6 74 33 82 58 / Fax : +33 5 34
35 43 39
Porte : P501 / E-Mail : remi.challamel at thalesaleniaspace.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic28253.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Backlog Loc_Plform 2011-08-25.xls
Type: application/msexcel
Size: 82432 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001..txt
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jhierro.vcf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 443 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20110825/6ca30248/attachment.obj>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy