[Fiware-iot] Partner assets

[Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)]

Dear Ricardo,
 
I fully agree, the morning session was OK, the afternoon session was not OK. I also think if we had more time to discuss among ourselves, we could have done more. I will try to compile a minimum set of requirements for the asset description and allocate a task to each asset owner where I don't see these.
The minimum would be:
-licensing conditions (open source, closed source, partially open source etc)
-which GE functionality is covered to which extent
 
Alternatively I think it would be better for the task leaders could start this exercise of clearing the picture, starting from the Excel sheet as a first input, which gives at least a filter which assets can be dropped right from the beginning.
 
Thanks & Br,
 
Lorant

________________________________

From: ext Ricardo de las Heras [mailto:rheras at tid.es] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:21 PM
To: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)
Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Partner assets


Dear Lorant, all,

first thank you for compilling there all the information related with the assets.

I think we still have a hard work to do in order to clarify the list of assets that finally will compose the functional blocks of every task, the steps done so far seems to be not decisive enough.

First I miss to have a document including a clear description of every asset (some literature paragraphs in Word), describing its key capabilities that would be provided to Fiware IoT, and how those capabilities are mapped to every of the tasks and its main functionalities.
IMHO some of the slides are very nice but don't describe clearly which functionalities described in the Word document 'High level Architecture description' are fulfilled or not.

Really I'm a little bit dissappointed after the Turin meeting, because I though we were going to come back home with a clear map of the assets, having a clear picture by task and the most suitable candidate in every case, but this is not the real case I think, at least for me :(

I don't know if this is the best way to proceed, but I'd propose you to take actions in this way in the short term, otherwise I think we have a puzzle that we will not able to solve.

thanks,
br,
Ricardo.


Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: 

	Dear All, 

	FYI, I uploaded to forge the company asset presentations I saw so far. With the private field set, of course. 
	https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/?group_id=11# <https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/?group_id=11#>  

	Thanks & Br, 

	Lorant 


-- 
-------------------------------------
Ricardo de las Heras
M2M Research Project Manager
E-mail: <mailto:rheras at tid.es>  rheras at tid.es
Phone1: (+34) 983 367625
Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511
Phone3 Skype: (+34) 91 1878107 + Ext: 327
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/20110922/a3b3fe84/attachment.html>