[Fiware-iot] Weekly meeting

[FRANCISCO OTEIZA LACALLE]

Only one comment. In resources management, In the current formulation management is consider as GE. But I´m afraid that we should reformulate this component:

1: keep it as it is, but changing his name by something more specific, IoT services, Resources & Things management (quite long)
2: Split it in two different GE, Things manager and IoT Services & resources manager
3: Split it and move the functional blocks into his respective GE, so we only offer two GE in this task. ( I prefer this option)

Fran



De: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Ernoe Kovacs
Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de junio de 2011 11:23
Para: thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Asunto: Re: [Fiware-iot] Weekly meeting

Thierry, Lorant, all,

during the PHC we had a discussion on the "grey boxes"
and whether that would be the GE.

I draw the attached picture for clarification, maybe to be included
as an overview somewhere at the beginning of the D2.2 text.

Question arising:

(a)    Are the mentioned "grey boxes" really the generic enablers?
They do not look right for me. Rather some blocks of functionality,
but not necessary a GE.

(b)   Also, looking at the names used her (which should mach the ones
in the grey boxes of the sub-component diagrams). Without the boxes,
they sometimes look rather meaningless (Frontend, Semantic Components, ...)
without the further sub-structuring.
I have the feeling it was not clear that the grey boxes would be the GEs
and they were chosen for different reasons...

(c)    Furthermore, there are different way of defining the grey boxes. For example
in IoT Process Automation we have Exposure Component. usually every
GE would have an internal exposure layer and related components.
This is clearly showing that the boxes there was made under the assumption
the IoT Process Automation is a GE.

(d)   IMHO, same line of discussion: a GE is an independent piece of software.
Would the GE called "AAA" be independent?

Let me ask the following questions
Q1: Are we agreeing that the picture and the drawn levels are correct
(Interfaces, GE, Grouping of GE?)?
Q2: Are we agreeing on the mentioned names on the GE level?
(To jump ahead, IMHO, we need to revise things...)
Q3: Are we agreeing on the multiple IF per GE aspect?


Hope this helps in clarifying and better structuring the IoT section.

BTW, I suggest to submit to all work packages this picture so that they
can draw an overview about their own enablers in the same way.


Regards
Ernö



From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: Dienstag, 21. Juni 2011 17:01
To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-iot] Weekly meeting


Dear all,

You can check the last version on the website (https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/182/v016_IOTSE.docx )

Based on our meeting with Juanjo, here are the points for the discussion tomorrow:

1.      Simplify SotA (too long in our document)

2.      Missing points: no updates for Unique Selling Points and What kind of stakeholders should be interested in IoT GEs

3.      GEs: regarding the other WPs, the grey boxes from the overall IoT picture could be Generic Enablers (in this case how to define the task level?)

4.      Packaging of all architecture pictures

5.      Process for the next weeks (merging all WPs documents) => final D2.2 deliveablre planned now for mid-July

BR

Thierry



________________________________
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/20110623/1e7fc20f/attachment.html>