Dear All, you can find the minutes of the confcall held yesterday at the following link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/10/779/I2ND_Confcall_20120202_minutes.doc Please correct possible mistakes, thanks. Moreover, there are important updates concerning two of the topics discussed there: - Standardisation per WP: we have now a .doc template for WP contribution (which implies also an excel one...), although it seems rather more extended that what it was planned earlier. I'll send a separate mail to Task cords about this, to coordinate the actions. - Architecture description: there are guidelines available at the link https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/Instructions_on_how_to_develop_FI-WARE_Chapter_Architecture_Descriptions PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the first part of guideline "FI-WARE GE Architecture Descriptions" concerns the description of a single GE architecture (what we call Open Specifications, e.g. the page FIWARE.OpenSpecification.I2ND.CE<https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/i2nd/index.php/FIWARE.OpenSpecification.I2ND.CE> , while the second part "FI-WARE Chapter Architecture Description" describes the overall architecture contribution, i.e. the entire Deliverable "D2.3 FIWARE Architecture" - I2ND Contrib<https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/i2nd/index.php/Deliverable_%22D2.3_FIWARE_Architecture%22_-_I2ND_Contrib> page. About the latter item, there's also an interesting discussion going on in the WPL/WPA list, about the use of uniform terms; below is an excerpt of a mail by Juanjo, we're all assumed to adopt the description style and terms suggested when referring to 'GE (open) specifications' and 'GE implementations' (including the non-verbose way): (...) Strictly speaking, we should never use the term "Generic Enabler" or "GE" alone in many of our sentences. It doesn't mean anything tangible. What do really exist (i.e., refers to something "tangible") are things like: * "GE specifications" (or "GE Open Specifications") * "a GE implementation" which refers to components in a given product that implement a given GE Open Specification and therefore may claim that they are "compliant with the GE Open Specifications". Then, whenever we say, as part of a given Architecture Description (which I believe we should not try to call "Specification") something like: "The IaaS Service Manager GE invokes the xxx operation exported by an IaaS Resource Manager GE to instruct them to provision the VApp" (A) we should indeed say: "The IaaS Service Manager GE implementation invokes the xxx operation exported by an IaaS Resource Manager GE implementation to instruct them to provision the VApp" (B) However, I believe that this would lead us to documents that would be rather "verbose". On the other hand, using (A) instead of (B) in standard specifications is rather common and many people would understand that you should make the distinction but you don't make it to for the sake of non-verbosity. I would go for putting a note somewhere at the beginning of the Architecture Description deliverable, where we may say something as: In order to avoid a too verbose text, we typically use the term "<name-of-GE> GE" or simply "<name-of-GE>" (e.g., "QueryBroker GE" or "QueryBroker") to refer to "an implementation of the <name-of-GE> GE Open Specifications" (e.g., "an implementation of the QueryBroker GE Open Specifications"). Note that the notion of GE is abstract and what actually refers to tangible things are: * "GE Open Specifications" which contain all information required in order to build components which can work as implementations of GEs. * "a GE Implementation" which refers to components in a given product that implement a given GE Open Specification and therefore may claim that they are "compliant with the GE Open Specifications". You may refer to the set of terms and definitions provided at: http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Overall_FI-WARE_Vision#Summary_of_key_concepts_introduced (...) Hope this helps in making more uniform and formally consistent the descriptions. BR Pier ------------------------------------------------------------------ Telecom Italia Pierangelo Garino Innovation & Industry Relations - Research & Prototyping Via G. Reiss Romoli 274, I-10148 TORINO Tel: +39 011 228 7142 Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000001 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-i2nd/attachments/20120203/ff45dfea/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia.jpg URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-i2nd/attachments/20120203/ff45dfea/attachment.jpg>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy