[Fiware-iot] [Fiware-Iot] IoT Weekly Meeting Minutes - 14/12/2011

[Martin Bauer]

Hi Ricardo,

My understanding regarding the Asset selection for T5.2 was the following:


-          Some components need to interwork so closely that it does not make sense to use different assets to implement them.
This is true for:

a)      [Directory Handler], [Resource Directory] and [IoT Resource and Service Discovery]

b)      [Things Manager] and [Discovery and Resolution of Things]

-          IDAS was the candidate for a) and (NEC's) IoT-A component for b)

-          b) will be required for NGSI functionality

-          from my point of view the only realistic competitor for b) would be SENSEI Entity Directory - under the assumption of the
asset not being selected, SAP has looked for an alternative activity, i.e. testing components

-          Regarding [Thing & IoT Service Monitoring] I do not see a contender to a yet to be developed IoT-A component, SENSEI did
not provide this functionality and as far as I know the other assets currently do not support the Thing/Entity concept

-          [IoT Catalog and Location] could in principle be handled by a different component as it may not have to be so closely integrated
with the components in a)

Do you agree with my assessment above? If not, could you please explain what you see differently and why?

I do not understand most of the arrows that have been added to slide 3, especially the configuration arrow between Things Manager and IoT Resource
Directory is unclear to me. I think NGSI would interact with Thing Resolution only. Then there needs to be some management interface providing
input to the Things Manager - for symmetry reasons with the service/resource layer, we could add another handler component, even though
the integration will be so close that this will not be a truly independent component.

Best regards,

Martin

------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Bauer
Senior Researcher
NEC Europe Ltd.
NEC Laboratories Europe
Software & Services Research Division
Kurfürsten-Anlage 36
D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168
Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155
E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu<mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu>
http://www.nw.neclab.eu

From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Ricardo de las Heras
Sent: Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2011 15:34
To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] [Fiware-Iot] IoT Weekly Meeting Minutes - 14/12/2011

Dear partners involved into T5.2,

following the discussion you had yesterday during the weekly call, I attach you a new couple of slides describing the high level blocks we have in the architecture and the new low level approach (v3) to the WP5 architecture provided by Dénes last week.

Maybe we need a further discussion for completing that low level schema of the architecture, we can do it later according as we continue our discussions, but I would like a this time to have a new and quick round now with all of you in order to describe where you see located your assets, matching those blocks of the architecture with your interest within T5.2.
Additionally to our assets (TID) I've included some others that I consider at this time clear enough (NEC, Univ.Surrey, ...), please complete/correct it if needed.

Please feel free for adding new blocks or additional details if needed for clarifying your contributions/interest, in fact I've added the 'Things manager' orange block, because I miss it (please Dénes you can clarify it for me, maybe it was already included there in some way).

Summarizing from our side TID, we would like to provide / to be involved in:
    - Resource management Directory (from IDAS), including the catalog of the registered resources (from SensorML, Register Sensor).
    - Things management Directory (from IoT-A).
    - Configuration/management relations Things-Resources (IoT-A).
We explicitly reject at this time to be involved in developing the M2M-ETSI standard inclusion, although it doesn't meant that other partners may provide it if they consider it interesting.
Alternatively as you know we offer our involvement for including OGC-SWE, suggesting to include finally both alternatives in the bottom side of the architecture, I consider it feasible and compatible.

This is our proposal, feedback is welcomed, I think is quite clear and now provide yours ASAP.

Please send me your modifications for integrating them over the attached couple of slides and a text describing those points in the same way.

thanks!

best regards,
Ricardo.

Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote:

Dear All,



Under this link please find the minutes from this week.

https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/685/FI-WARE+IoT+Minutes+14-12-11.doc



Best,

Dénes



_______________________________________________

Fiware-iot mailing list

Fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu>

http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-iot

_______________________________________________

Fiware-iot mailing list

Fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu>

http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-iot

--
-------------------------------------
Ricardo de las Heras
M2M Research Technological Specialist
E-mail:<mailto:rheras at tid.es> rheras at tid.es<mailto:rheras at tid.es>
Phone1: (+34) 983 367625
Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511
Telefónica I+D<http://www.tid.es>
-------------------------------------

________________________________
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/old-fiware-iot/attachments/20111215/79f2bce8/attachment.html>