[Fiware-iot] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Resubmission of FI-WARE Technical Roadmap

[Tobias Jacobs]

Hi Lorant,

Thanks for the good and accurate info, I really miss you guys!

I cannot decide if we want to become WPA or not at this point of time where all my colleagues are on holiday, but anyway thanks a lot for recommending us.

Best regards
Tobias

From: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:lorant.farkas at nsn.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 14. August 2012 16:46
To: Tobias Jacobs; Miguel Carrillo; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Cc: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)
Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Resubmission of FI-WARE Technical Roadmap

Dear All,

The status of this deliverable as I know it was that there were no guidelines for the generation. We left on the 1st of August. Juanjo sent guidelines to the WPA/WPL lists on the 3rd of August. We received it as fortunately/unfortunately noone took the action to remove us from the list :), so I attach it hereby.
Someone should take care of it. Hasn't Thierry asked NEC whether you want to become WPA? At least that was our recommendation at the time.
If you want to become WPA, I guess this would be the right opportunity :)

Thanks & Br,

Lorant


From: ext Tobias Jacobs [mailto:Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu]<mailto:[mailto:Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:35 PM
To: Tobias Jacobs; Miguel Carrillo; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Cc: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)
Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Resubmission of FI-WARE Technical Roadmap

Hi all,

Up to now there is a draft of the 'technical roadmap' in the common private wiki:

https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/FiwareDeliverableD2.4IoT


-          At the moment there are some comments by NEC requesting changes. I will ask Telefonica about that in an extra email and hopefully remove the comments very soon.



-          Lorant or Denes, could you make a short statement about what was the status of this deliverable? (Sorry, I hope that we do not need to bother you with WP5 requests too often in the future)


Anyone else wants to comment, or are you all on holiday? ;-)

Best regards
Tobias


From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Tobias Jacobs
Sent: Dienstag, 14. August 2012 10:15
To: Miguel Carrillo; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Resubmission of FI-WARE Technical Roadmap

Dear Miguel,

The situation in IoT is somewhat unclear at the moment, as the WPA (which was NSN) has left the work package two week ago.

I have to admit that I do not really have an overview about the overall status of the deliverables, but what I can offer is to check the minutes of the weekly meetings and try to find out what the status is.

Best regards
Tobias

From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu]<mailto:[mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu]> On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo
Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 16:08
To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Subject: [Fiware-iot] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Resubmission of FI-WARE Technical Roadmap

Dear all,

Sorry for contacting you directly but there is something of the utmost importance and we need to make sure that it is properly attended. If you see the enclosed message, the Project Coordinator is preparing the final delivery that will be sent out very soon.

We are in the process of closing the Technical Roadmap deliverable and IoT seems the only chapter that has not delivered their contributions (I2ND had created them in time but they forgot to  link them to the placeholder). This is largely the responsibility of the WP Leader but I do not know who is replacing Thierry in his holidays. Who has been appointed by him as contact point in his absence? (I see from his vacation email that he is on leave until the end of the month but he does not mention any replacement or deputy)

Best regards,

Miguel


-------- Mensaje original --------
Asunto:

[Fiware-wpa] Resubmission of FI-WARE Technical Roadmap

Fecha:

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:15:01 +0200

De:

Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

A:

fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu> <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu><mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>, fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu> <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu><mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>



Dear all,

  I have checked the contributions by the different chapters to the resubmission of the Technical Roadmap and all are Ok IMHO but the one from the IoT and the I2ND chapters that are still missing.

  I would suggest that the rest of chapters upload their contributions to the FI-WARE public wiki so that contents of their respective chapter get updated the same way that the Apps Chapter has done.   It would be nice that they implement one enhancement that the Apps Chapter has introduced that I rather like: create a wiki link between the names of the GEs when they appear in the Technical Roadmap page (i.e., the tables listing Features/Epics) and the corresponding section on the "Materializing the FI-WARE Vision" part of the wiki.

  Deadline for the IoT chapter to complete their task is August 15th EOB.   Please get it done so that we can officially resubmit by August 16th.   Rest of chapters are free to update their contributions until August 15th EOB if they desire to do so.

  In order to complete the picture, don't miss that one remaining task would be that of updating the Stakeholder field in each backlog entry linked to an Epic or Feature published on the wiki.   I would suggest using "FI-WARE" in the case this is a need identified by us, instead of naming a specific partner of FI-WARE.  This will avoid questions like "Is only xxx the partner in FI-WARE asking for this feature ?".   You can keep information about the specific company that proposed the feature by using the field "Owner".     You should also try to add the name of those UC projects that you know are also asking for that Epic or Feature (thanks to interaction during/after the educational weeks).    We will nevertheless ask the UC projects to list themselves in the Stakeholder field on another track (but this once we have published the new contents of the Technical Roadmap with the tables of Epics and Features)

  Besides this, I would kindly ask you to carry out a revision of the tracker of your chapter to make sure it gets aligned with what is currently on the Wiki, thus we can start from a new page in September:

  *   Some of the Epics/Features may have changed, so please translate whatever change on the tracker
  *   Make sure that Release Ids (numbering) is ok.   I remind you the conventions at http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Releases_and_Sprints_numbering,_with_mapping_to_calendar_dates

  Don't forget that reviewers have also asked us to resubmit the tracker contents, so this is an exercise that we definitively have to do.

  Last but not least, regarding updates of Technical Roadmap wiki pages, a couple of minor comments though:

  *   Regarding contribution of the Cloud chapter:

     *   Please update listing of features linked to the Cloud Proxy GE so that it aligns with the rest of the table
     *   You didn't need a table for "Future Releases".   You can mention that you will work in a "stabilized version taking into account new Use Cases requirements" in a dedicated statement within the last paragraph
     *   put a CR after the table to avoid it to be displayed too close to the following header (this will be done by adding '<br/>' right after the table, check Apps Chapter)

  *   Regarding contribution of the Security chapter:

     *   Please use references to wiki pages on the public wiki (built using the notation '[[<name of wiki page>]]') instead of hyperlinks
     *   put a CR after the table to avoid it to be displayed too close to the following header (this will be done by adding '<br/>' right after the table, check Apps Chapter)

  Cheers,

-- Juanjo



-------------

Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital

website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>

email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro



FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect



You can follow FI-WARE at:

  website:  http://www.fi-ware.eu

  facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242

  twitter:  http://twitter.com/FIware

  linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932

________________________________

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-iot/attachments/20120814/1f05d73a/attachment.html>