From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 2 11:03:00 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:03:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [Fiware-wpa] Private wiki Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202D99F0F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> FYI, we will add you to this very private project soon. Br, Lorant From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 10:00 AM To: fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpa] Private wiki Just a clarification. To able to use this, you need to be previously authenticated on the forge. In other words, to use it you: 1. Go to https://forge.fi-ware.eu 2. Log in 3. Go to one of the aforementioned links of the private wiki. Please make everyone in your WPs aware of this. Regards, Miguel El 21/12/2011 18:29, Miguel Carrillo escribi?: Dear all, We have created a private project with a private wiki. It is so private that it is not listed on the list of projects on the forge. The only way to reach it is via a direct link! All the WPLs and WPAs should be already administrators of this wiki. * Admin link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/projects/fi-ware-private * Private wiki: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/Main_Page @WPLs & WPAs: Please add the users of your respective WPs to the user list. Choose the profile "Senior Developer" for them. To do it, you can go to the 1st link (admin link), click on "Admin" -> "Users" -> "Add Users From List". You will get to a list will all the users from the forge. You can do a multiple selection and add them one by one. Regards, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT3795305.txt URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 2 13:19:52 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:19:52 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [Fiware] We are on Facebook now! Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202D99FBE@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, FYI, please "like" FI-WARE if you are on Facebook. Thanks & Br, Lorant -----Original Message----- From: fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 5:08 PM To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware] We are on Facebook now! Dear all, We have our Facebook page now. You can reach it on: WPL, can you please disseminate this within your respective WPs? http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 Please tick on the "I like it" button to help us grow a reasonable number of votes on Facebook. Thanks Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware mailing list Fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 2 14:06:21 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 15:06:21 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] [Fiware-wpa] Private wiki Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202D9A002@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, You should be all on this very private project now, please check. Thanks & Br, Lorant (PS: I hate fusion forge now even more than before) From: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 11:03 AM To: 'fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Private wiki FYI, we will add you to this very private project soon. Br, Lorant From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 10:00 AM To: fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpa] Private wiki Just a clarification. To able to use this, you need to be previously authenticated on the forge. In other words, to use it you: 1. Go to https://forge.fi-ware.eu 2. Log in 3. Go to one of the aforementioned links of the private wiki. Please make everyone in your WPs aware of this. Regards, Miguel El 21/12/2011 18:29, Miguel Carrillo escribi?: Dear all, We have created a private project with a private wiki. It is so private that it is not listed on the list of projects on the forge. The only way to reach it is via a direct link! All the WPLs and WPAs should be already administrators of this wiki. * Admin link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/projects/fi-ware-private * Private wiki: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/Main_Page @WPLs & WPAs: Please add the users of your respective WPs to the user list. Choose the profile "Senior Developer" for them. To do it, you can go to the 1st link (admin link), click on "Admin" -> "Users" -> "Add Users From List". You will get to a list will all the users from the forge. You can do a multiple selection and add them one by one. Regards, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Tue Jan 3 09:28:05 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:28:05 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202D9A1A9@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> When: 2012. janu?r 4. 10:00-11:30 (GMT+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague. Where: telco/webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Dear All, I would propose to discuss about the following topics for our next meeting: 1. Architecture specification deliverable, pending end of January: we will hopefully distribute material tomorrow EOB about this 2. Status/progress in the tasks (work items, features, user stories etc): remember that we are in the final sprint of the 1st minor release, we should be able to deliver something functional by the end of January, let's discuss in a realistic/pragmatic way what that "something" could be, per task. Many partners could still be on holiday (for instance Telecom Italia signalled they would not come to this meeting), nevertheless we think it is important to resume our activities. Thanks & Br, Lorant Dear All, Let's resume our weekly meeting starting from next week in the usual day/time, which is Wednesday, 10:00 AM (CET) to 11:30. Either WPL or WPA will be present to host the meeting. In case we find good reason to skip the meeting, then we will skip it, but I propose not to deviate from this slot. Thanks & Br, Lorant Topic: IOT WP weekly Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, 10 August 2011 to Wednesday, 26 March 2014 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 709 472 921 Meeting Password: FI-WARE ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&RT=MTgjMjM%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: FI-WARE 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&ORT=MTgjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- NSN Voice Conference information Conference ID: 58465 New PIN: 9369002 Making a conference call * from the office: 8071870 (in Finland and Germany) * from out of office: +358 7180 71870 (in Finland) and +49 89 5159 43800 (in Germany) All out-of-office conference access numbers are listed in page https://inside.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/MyServices/IT/Infrastructure_Services/RealTimeCommunication/VoiceService/NSNVoiceConference/MakingaCall/LocalAccessNumbers/Pages/Outofofficenumbers.aspx. Please check and prioritize them. If there is no access number for your country then please use access numbers of the area where to the calling costs are lowest. ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: lorant.farkas at nsn.com Argentina - Buenos Aires +54 11 5983 9400 (PRIMARY) or +54 11 4814 9373 Argentina - Cordoba +54 35 1568 2208 Australia - Sydney +61 28 014 7189 (PRIMARY) or +61 29 429 9664 Australia - Melbourne +61 38 739 4333 Austria +43 72 088 0245 Bahrain +97 31 619 9028 Belgium - Generic +32 1448 0116 Belgium - Diegem-Machelen +32 2710 3300 Brazil - Belo Horizonte +55 31 3956 0546 Brazil - Brazil +55 61 3717 2043 Brazil - Curitiba +55 41 3906 0826 Brazil - Manaus +55 92 3652 7576 Brazil - Rio De Janeiro +55 21 3958 0804 (PRIMARY) or +55 21 3431 1999 Brazil - Salvador +55 71 3717 5351 Brazil - Sao Paolo +55 11 5508 0630 Bulgaria +359 2491 7085 Canada - Ajax +1 90 5619 4346 Canada - Burnaby +1 60 4456 5897 Canada - Hamilton +1 905 581 0212 Canada - Mississauga +1 289 360 3950 Canada - Montreal +1 51 4789 9125 Canada - Ottawa +1 61 3800 0568 Chile - Santiago +56 2350 6485 China - Mainland +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Beijing +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Chengdu +86 28 8689 0188 ext 1870 China - Dongguan +86 0769 2240 2844 ext 1870 China - Guangzhou +86 20 8755 6190 ext 1870 China - Hangzhou +86 571 8722 0877 ext 1870 China - Hong Kong +852 259 70220 ext 1870 China - Kunming +86 871 362 2880 ext 1870 China - Shanghai +86 21 6101 1870 ext 1870 China - ShenZhen +86 755 8613 3688 ext 1870 China - Suzhou +86 512 6761 6166 ext 1870 China - Zhengzhou +86 371 6566 9768 ext 1870 Colombia +57 1640 7979 ext 444 Croatia +38 51 777 6122 Czech Republic +42 02 460 19300 Denmark +45 699 18450 (PRIMARY) or +45 3329 2882 Egypt +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Estonia +37 266 67297 Finland +358 7180 71870 France +33 17 061 7813 (PRIMARY) or +33 14 915 1553 Germany +49 89 5159 43800 Greece +30 21 1176 8207 (PRIMARY) or +30 21 1120 3677 Hungary - Budapest +36 17 009 888 Hungary - Kom?rom +36 20 884 2499 India 000 800 100 7777 Indonesia - Jakarta (Menara Mulia/Plaza Kuningan +62 21 2557 9102 Indonesia - Bandung +62 22 8427 5992 Indonesia - Medan +62 61 3001 2702 Indonesia - Semarang +62 24 3300 0702 Ireland +353 1526 2862 Israel +97 29 775 1700 Italy - Milan +39 024 004 2007 Italy - Rome +39 069 481 6656 Japan +81 3 4578 0230 (PRIMARY) or +81 3 5474 7979 Kuwait +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Latvia +37 16 765 2510 Lithuania +37 0 5205 8994 Luxembourg +352 2088 0106 Malaysia +60 323 029 009 Mexico - Mexico City +52 55 3686 9759 (PRIMARY) or +52 55 5261 7245 Mexico - Reynosa +52 89 9909 1555 Netherlands +31 79 346 5225 New Zealand +64 9306 6933 Norway - Oslo +47 21 548 223 Oman +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Pakistan +92 512 092 444 Panama +507 832 7981 Peru +51 1708 5370 (PRIMARY) or +51 1215 7650 Philippines +63 2754 1700 Poland - Warsaw +48 22 398 8116 Poland - Wroclaw +48 71 718 1215 Portugal +351 21 044 4698 Qatar +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Romania +40 36 440 3799 Russia +74 95 725 2706 Saudi Arabia +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Singapore +65 3103 1065 (PRIMARY) or +65 6723 2582 Slovakia +42 12 3300 6924 Slovenia +38 61 600 2713 South Africa - Johannesburg +27 1 0500 2221 South Africa - Pretoria +27 1 2004 2334 South Korea - Masan +82 5 5290 7690 South Korea - Seoul +82 2 2186 5088 Spain +349 1187 5929 Sweden +46 85 250 0862 (PRIMARY), +46 84 100 9299 Switzerland +41 44 279 7943 Taiwan +88 62 8175 9298 Thailand +66 2762 6750 Turkey +90 216 570 2345 Ukraine +38 044 520 2272 UK +44 12 5275 8334 UK - Camberley +44 12 5286 5849 UK - Church Crookham +44 12 5261 1100 UK - Huntingdon +44 14 8087 8220 (PRIMARY), +44 14 8044 4206 UK - London +44 20 3318 1924 United Arab Emirates +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) USA - Alpharetta +1 770 871 3050 USA - Arizona +1 480 588 3748 USA - Atlanta +1 404 236 4550 USA - Atlanta Notheast +1 678 317 3165 USA - Austin/Round Rock +1 512 600 2027 USA - Belleville +1 973 547 7982 USA - Boca Raton +1 561 910 2843 USA - Boston +1 617 963 8320 (PRIMARY) or +1 781 993 4850 USA - Burlington +1 781 993 4850 USA - Calabasas +1 818 914 0215 USA - Canoga Park +1 818 914 0215 USA - Cary +1 919 655 1388 USA - Chelmsford/Littleton +1 978 679 0233 USA - Chicago +1 773 303 4710 USA - Dallas +1 214 269 7626 USA - Dallas/Fort Worth +1 214 270 0352 USA - Greenville, NC +1 252 329 1677 USA - Herndon +1 703 483 4485 USA - Johnson City +1 423 952 1545 USA - Kirkland +1 425 242 3113 USA - Miami +1 786 388 4150 or +1 786 329 7177 USA - Naperville +1 630 596 2203 USA - New Brunswick +1 732 579 6483 USA - New Century, KS +1 913 254 5900 USA - New York White Plains +1 914 368 0650 USA - New York Peekskill, White Plains +1 914 293 1885 USA - Palo Alto +1 650 644 1349 USA - Redmond +1 425 242 3113 USA - San Diego +1 858 769 5309 or +1 619 330 9699 USA - Sunnyvale +1 408 419 1750 USA - Washington D.C +1 202 552 4781 Vietnam +84 4 3724 6110 Yemen +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meeting.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 10950 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rheras at tid.es Wed Jan 4 10:03:26 2012 From: rheras at tid.es (Ricardo de las Heras) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:03:26 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Message-ID: <4F0415DE.8060205@tid.es> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE IoT - Things Management Layer-v1.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 127564 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephan.haller at sap.com Wed Jan 4 10:42:37 2012 From: stephan.haller at sap.com (Haller, Stephan) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:42:37 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Use of FMC and FMC stencils for yED Message-ID: <0D2446AEB6CAED48BB046223733964A54C49E09979@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> All, As discussed in today's call, you can find FMC stencils for yED as well as a guide how to install them at https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/How_to_install_FMC_stencils_in_yEd. A good primer on FMC is at http://www.fmc-modeling.org/notation_reference. On that site, there is a good overview at http://www.fmc-modeling.org/download/notation_reference/Reference_Sheet-Block_Diagram.pdf Regards, -Stephan Stephan Haller Development Architect - Internet of Things, SAP Research SAP (Schweiz) AG, Kreuzplatz 20, CH-8008 Z?rich, Switzerland T +41 58 871 78 45, F +41 58 871 78 12 mailto:stephan.haller at sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fano.ramparany at orange.com Wed Jan 4 12:02:20 2012 From: fano.ramparany at orange.com (fano.ramparany at orange.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:02:20 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides In-Reply-To: <4F0415DE.8060205@tid.es> References: <4F0415DE.8060205@tid.es> Message-ID: Thank you for this overall view of the IoT chapter Ricardo. I've got few questions about the data model. - How does the Metadata/Things/IoTResource/Event maps or relates to the Data/Context/Event schema introduced in the Vision document (Chapter "introduction")? - In the Vision document, Metadata seems to be properties about properties. Along this interpretation, timestamp might be one of this metadata, whereas in your model all properties have timestamp. - Could you give examples of "associations" among Things and between Things and IoT? - In your model, how would you represent that a TVset is placed on the table? Would this information be stored in the configuration repository? - How would you represent the events capturing a move of the TVset or the fact that the TVset has been relocated at another place? Would they be stored in the event repository? Thank you in advance for your help, Fano PS: I've put the Fiware-data mailing list in the loop as obviously both chapters should synchronize on this issue De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ricardo de las Heras Envoy? : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 10:03 ? : fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Hi all, As you know, we have to deliver an Architecture Specification by end of January and deadline is approaching. This Architecture Specification should explain how the different GEs interact together and with the applications, going a step beyond from the very high-level figures we have designed so far. Elaborating on the interfaces the conceptual models to be supported. After some internal discussions at TID, we have come up with a draft Architecture for the Things Management Layer which is explained in the slides attached to this mail. We would like to rely on these slides to launch the discussion among partners in this task as well as the WPL and WPA, also involving some of the relevant partners from the Data/Context Management Chapter which may bring some pieces of the overall picture. I may elaborate on them during the phone call now if needed. Br, -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 4 12:46:32 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:46:32 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [Fiware-wpa] IMPORTANT: FI-WARE General Assembly (Plenary) meeting in January Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED5DE@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, I just realized in the meeting that not all of you might be aware of this, so here the information on the GA. Sorry for not forwarding this earlier... By the way, if you access the mediawiki tab of this very private project to which I added you yesterday and I sent information around (see attachment) you will get information on the venue of the GA. Thanks & Br, Lorant -----Original Message----- From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Juanjo Hierro Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:45 PM To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] IMPORTANT: FI-WARE General Assembly (Plenary) meeting in January Hi all, This is to let you know that the next FI-WARE General Assembly (Plenary) meeting will take place in Madrid in Telefonica's facilities, from January 23rd until January 27th. Focus will be given in that the different chapter (WP) teams meet together face2face. Also to arrange joint meetings involving several chapters at convenience, in order to address cross-chapter issues. Thus, we will take advantage that we are meeting in the same venue. We may have a short plenary meeting of about 2-3 hours but not more than that. We have booked 9 rooms from January 23 starting at 14:30 until January 27th 14:00. We believe it should be enough to run all the parallel meetings that are needed. We will setup a google docs spreadsheet to help closing the concrete dates and times at which a) each chapter (WP) will meet alone and b) joint chapter meetings will take place (this, of course means they agree among themselves). Soon we will send you an email with more info about logistics but we wanted to share already this basic information so that you can start booking flights and accomodations. We couldn't make it before we got sure that we could book all the necessary rooms. WPLs and WPAs will meet from January 23 starting at 09:00am. Cheers, -- ------------- Juanjo Hierro Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpa mailing list Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpa -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)" Subject: RE: [Fiware-wpa] Private wiki Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 15:06:21 +0200 Size: 4488 URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 4 13:23:45 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:23:45 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting minutes Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED62F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Please find the meeting minutes under the following link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/715/IoT_04012012.docx Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 4 15:15:22 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:15:22 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] NGSI mailing list Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED717@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Can you send me by EOB tomorrow names who are interested in the IoT group to be on the NGSI interest list, fiware-ngsi at lists.fiware.eu beyond the colleagues mentioned in the e-mail from Juanjo? <<[Fiware-ngsi] Launching mailing list dedicated to discussion on NGSI interfaces in FI-WARE>> Thierry: maybe also Laurent or Laurence? Martin, Ern?: maybe also Tobias, Salvatore? Stephan: you mentioned 3 colleagues would be interested, who are they? Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "ext Juanjo Hierro" Subject: [Fiware-ngsi] Launching mailing list dedicated to discussion on NGSI interfaces in FI-WARE Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:31:39 +0200 Size: 175549 URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 4 15:23:51 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:23:51 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] ETSI M2M mailing list Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED72C@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Could you please indicate by Friday EOB who out of the IoT group wants to be member of the ETSI M2M mailing list? This would be set up to exchange information on the more detailed specification starting from ETSI M2M specs to be created in order to derive user stories. We made early investigations and the conclusion is that there is room for specification, ETSI M2M is not very specific in every place. My assumption is that the following should be at least in this list: -Wafa Souda (Orange) -D?nes Bisztray/Lorant Farkas (NSN) -Jan H?ller and/or Jakob Saros (Ericsson) -Gian Piero Fici (TI) Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 4 15:30:47 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:30:47 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] NGSI mailing list Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED73D@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, I modify my request: please be aware of the mailing list http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ngsi and subscribe in case you are interested/concerned by it or unsubscribe if you think you should not be on it. Thanks & Br, Lorant _____________________________________________ From: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:15 PM To: 'fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: NGSI mailing list Dear All, Can you send me by EOB tomorrow names who are interested in the IoT group to be on the NGSI interest list, fiware-ngsi at lists.fiware.eu beyond the colleagues mentioned in the e-mail from Juanjo? << Message: [Fiware-ngsi] Launching mailing list dedicated to discussion on NGSI interfaces in FI-WARE >> Thierry: maybe also Laurent or Laurence? Martin, Ern?: maybe also Tobias, Salvatore? Stephan: you mentioned 3 colleagues would be interested, who are they? Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Jan 4 15:37:44 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:37:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] NGSI mailing list In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED717@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED717@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Of course for Orange, Laurent and Laurence are members of the mailing-list. BR Thierry De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Envoy? : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 15:15 ? : fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-iot] NGSI mailing list Dear All, Can you send me by EOB tomorrow names who are interested in the IoT group to be on the NGSI interest list, fiware-ngsi at lists.fiware.eu beyond the colleagues mentioned in the e-mail from Juanjo? <<[Fiware-ngsi] Launching mailing list dedicated to discussion on NGSI interfaces in FI-WARE>> Thierry: maybe also Laurent or Laurence? Martin, Ern?: maybe also Tobias, Salvatore? Stephan: you mentioned 3 colleagues would be interested, who are they? Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Jan 4 15:39:05 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:39:05 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] ETSI M2M mailing list In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED72C@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED72C@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: HI Lorant For Orange there is a mistake in the name. This is Ms Wafa Soubra (wafa.soubra at orange.com). Thanks Thierry De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Envoy? : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 15:24 ? : fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-iot] ETSI M2M mailing list Dear All, Could you please indicate by Friday EOB who out of the IoT group wants to be member of the ETSI M2M mailing list? This would be set up to exchange information on the more detailed specification starting from ETSI M2M specs to be created in order to derive user stories. We made early investigations and the conclusion is that there is room for specification, ETSI M2M is not very specific in every place. My assumption is that the following should be at least in this list: -Wafa Souda (Orange) -D?nes Bisztray/Lorant Farkas (NSN) -Jan H?ller and/or Jakob Saros (Ericsson) -Gian Piero Fici (TI) Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rheras at tid.es Wed Jan 4 16:46:33 2012 From: rheras at tid.es (Ricardo de las Heras) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:46:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides In-Reply-To: References: <4F0415DE.8060205@tid.es> Message-ID: <4F047459.6050004@tid.es> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GUYSH at il.ibm.com Wed Jan 4 19:55:05 2012 From: GUYSH at il.ibm.com (Guy Sharon) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:55:05 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] [Fiware-data] T5.2 slides In-Reply-To: <4F047459.6050004@tid.es> References: <4F0415DE.8060205@tid.es> <4F047459.6050004@tid.es> Message-ID: Thank you for the examples - this helps in introducing some 'complications' to address by this method and in some sense to motivate that events should be considered to be stored\handled rather than updates to values (which is what I interpret from the presentation below) Example - TVSet moved - the event repository would hold a property of TVSet location value with timestamp. In some cases it is not enough - for example I would like to distinguish the move by an event that was the result of pushing the TVSet from an event representing the pulling of the TVSet to its new location. I would not be able to distinguish this by looking at the location value of the TVSet. Therefore based on the Vision document I think the event repository should store events (as a specific data element) with properties and not just properties. For example, PushTVSet event with property = location and property = timestamp (and could include more info such as the speed of movement) The point is that there is much more to the semantics of an event than representing the change in value or the change in transition. The change in value is more of a notification that the value changed the event represents the reason\cause of the change - for example thermometer - the change is in the temperature but the event is temperature reading. The change is in TVSet location transition but the event is pushed or pulled to the new location. Event processing reasons on the events and values and not just values in time. The TVSet was pulled 3 times during the day to the same location would give different results than 3 times during the day the location of the TVSet changed to the same value. Regards, Guy Sharon Manager Event-based Middleware & Solutions Phone: 972-4-8296587 | Mobile: 972-54-6976417 E-mail: GUYSH at il.ibm.com Website: www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/services/soms_ebs.html Find me on: and within IBM on: Haifa University, Mount Carmel Haifa, HA 31905 Israel From: Ricardo de las Heras To: "fano.ramparany at orange.com" Cc: "fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "Fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 04/01/2012 17:49 Subject: Re: [Fiware-data] [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Sent by: fiware-data-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi Fano, my reply inline: fano.ramparany at orange.com wrote: Thank you for this overall view of the IoT chapter Ricardo. I?ve got few questions about the data model. - How does the Metadata/Things/IoTResource/Event maps or relates to the Data/Context/Event schema introduced in the Vision document (Chapter ?introduction?)? - In the Vision document, Metadata seems to be properties about properties. Along this interpretation, timestamp might be one of this metadata, whereas in your model all properties have timestamp. - Well, I wouldn't like to lose the main focus (interfaces, blocks, ...) of those slides with this issue, the data model includes a timestamp in both: Properties and Observactions. I think in observations is quite clear for all of us, and Properties (associated to a Thing), as result of collecting all the capabilities (properties) of the resources associated to a single Thing. That's the idea, really I don't know how this issue is introduced in the Vision document, but if you find any contradiction please let me know. The concept of meta-data would imply the idea of 'Property'-'Value' association, as final high abstract model level of the data dictionary. - Could you give examples of ?associations? among Things and between Things and IoT? Example: - Thing: Room - Resource1: Thermometer-1 within the room. - Resource2: Pressure meter within the room. R1 and R2 are associated to the Thing 'Room', so you can ask for the temperature of the room, and the Things resolution would ask to R1 about this value and timestamp. - In your model, how would you represent that a TVset is placed on the table? Would this information be stored in the configuration repository? - In the same way, TVset is associated to a table, but if the location would be relevant for your system, it should be modelled as an additional property (on, under, in, besides, etc.), storing it as an additional feature of course. Or for example adding x,y,z coordinate. - How would you represent the events capturing a move of the TVset or the fact that the TVset has been relocated at another place? Would they be stored in the event repository? - Again depending of the requirements of the system, of course you can generate an event as result of a movement, automatically (sensor) or manually, modifying the location of the object, and therefore the information stored. In IoT we have a Resource Monitoring module for monitorizing dynamic associations between Things and Resources. Example: A car (resource) is moving along several streets (Things), changing this association in real time. other partners: please feel free to correct/complement my answers, Thank you in advance for your help, Fano you're welcome, cheers, Ricardo. PS: I?ve put the Fiware-data mailing list in the loop as obviously both chapters should synchronize on this issue De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Ricardo de las Heras Envoy? : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 10:03 ? : fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Hi all, As you know, we have to deliver an Architecture Specification by end of January and deadline is approaching. This Architecture Specification should explain how the different GEs interact together and with the applications, going a step beyond from the very high-level figures we have designed so far. Elaborating on the interfaces the conceptual models to be supported. After some internal discussions at TID, we have come up with a draft Architecture for the Things Management Layer which is explained in the slides attached to this mail. We would like to rely on these slides to launch the discussion among partners in this task as well as the WPL and WPA, also involving some of the relevant partners from the Data/Context Management Chapter which may bring some pieces of the overall picture. I may elaborate on them during the phone call now if needed. Br, -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-data mailing list Fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-data -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 518 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 488 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 467 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 360 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fano.ramparany at orange.com Thu Jan 5 10:04:05 2012 From: fano.ramparany at orange.com (fano.ramparany at orange.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:04:05 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] [Fiware-data] T5.2 slides In-Reply-To: References: <4F0415DE.8060205@tid.es> <4F047459.6050004@tid.es> Message-ID: Thank you for your feedback Ricardo and Guy, My comments inline below, De : Guy Sharon [mailto:GUYSH at il.ibm.com] Envoy? : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 19:55 ? : Ricardo de las Heras Cc : RAMPARANY Fano RD-TECH-GRE; Fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-data] [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Thank you for the examples - this helps in introducing some 'complications' to address by this method and in some sense to motivate that events should be considered to be stored\handled rather than updates to values (which is what I interpret from the presentation below) Example - TVSet moved - the event repository would hold a property of TVSet location value with timestamp. In some cases it is not enough - for example I would like to distinguish the move by an event that was the result of pushing the TVSet from an event representing the pulling of the TVSet to its new location. I would not be able to distinguish this by looking at the location value of the TVSet. Therefore based on the Vision document I think the event repository should store events (as a specific data element) with properties and not just properties. This is indeed an issue I raised in FIWARE-data. I was also in favor of modeling properties as events rather than data elements as events. From the assumption that a data element in the Vision Document corresponds to a Thing in T5.2 slides, its seems more intuitive to consider the (newly measured) location of the TVSet as an event than to consider the TVSet as an event. For example, PushTVSet event with property = location and property = timestamp (and could include more info such as the speed of movement) The point is that there is much more to the semantics of an event than representing the change in value or the change in transition. We could handle timestamp as what is called "meta data" in the vision document. These meta data are attached to "properties" in the vision document. For the speed of movement we could handle this as the result of processing the location property ( (currentlocation - previouslocation)/(currentlocation.timestamp - previouslocation.timestamp) ) and create a new property attached the the TVSet Thing (or TVSet Data element). More generally, any derivation of new properties based on existing properties, we could view it as "reasoning" and handled by the appropriate GE. The change in value is more of a notification that the value changed the event represents the reason\cause of the change - for example thermometer - the change is in the temperature but the event is temperature reading. The change is in TVSet location transition but the event is pushed or pulled to the new location. Event processing reasons on the events and values and not just values in time. The TVSet was pulled 3 times during the day to the same location would give different results than 3 times during the day the location of the TVSet changed to the same value. I'm not sure I fully understand your point Guy. I agree that sensor readings are modeled as events. If you mean that change detection is the result of processing (analyzing) the events flow, I also agree. Example if the flow of "measuring" the TVSet location events is: Event1: table Event2: table Event3: ground Event4: ground Event5: table Event6: table Event7: table Changes occurs only at Event3 and Event5 About the consistency between the data/context/event schema from the Vision Document and the metadata/thing/iotResource schema from the T5.2 slides. The main discrepancy I've identified so far is the metadata. We also need to agree on Thing relate to Data Element, and how the IoTRessource does map into the Vision Document schema. Kind regards, Fano Regards, Guy Sharon Manager Event-based Middleware & Solutions ________________________________ Phone: 972-4-8296587 | Mobile: 972-54-6976417 E-mail: GUYSH at il.ibm.com Website: www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/services/soms_ebs.html Find me on: and within IBM on: Haifa University, Mount Carmel Haifa, HA 31905 Israel From: Ricardo de las Heras To: "fano.ramparany at orange.com" Cc: "fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "Fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 04/01/2012 17:49 Subject: Re: [Fiware-data] [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Sent by: fiware-data-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Hi Fano, my reply inline: fano.ramparany at orange.com wrote: Thank you for this overall view of the IoT chapter Ricardo. I've got few questions about the data model. - How does the Metadata/Things/IoTResource/Event maps or relates to the Data/Context/Event schema introduced in the Vision document (Chapter "introduction")? - In the Vision document, Metadata seems to be properties about properties. Along this interpretation, timestamp might be one of this metadata, whereas in your model all properties have timestamp. - Well, I wouldn't like to lose the main focus (interfaces, blocks, ...) of those slides with this issue, the data model includes a timestamp in both: Properties and Observactions. I think in observations is quite clear for all of us, and Properties (associated to a Thing), as result of collecting all the capabilities (properties) of the resources associated to a single Thing. That's the idea, really I don't know how this issue is introduced in the Vision document, but if you find any contradiction please let me know. The concept of meta-data would imply the idea of 'Property'-'Value' association, as final high abstract model level of the data dictionary. - Could you give examples of "associations" among Things and between Things and IoT? Example: - Thing: Room - Resource1: Thermometer-1 within the room. - Resource2: Pressure meter within the room. R1 and R2 are associated to the Thing 'Room', so you can ask for the temperature of the room, and the Things resolution would ask to R1 about this value and timestamp. - In your model, how would you represent that a TVset is placed on the table? Would this information be stored in the configuration repository? - In the same way, TVset is associated to a table, but if the location would be relevant for your system, it should be modelled as an additional property (on, under, in, besides, etc.), storing it as an additional feature of course. Or for example adding x,y,z coordinate. - How would you represent the events capturing a move of the TVset or the fact that the TVset has been relocated at another place? Would they be stored in the event repository? - Again depending of the requirements of the system, of course you can generate an event as result of a movement, automatically (sensor) or manually, modifying the location of the object, and therefore the information stored. In IoT we have a Resource Monitoring module for monitorizing dynamic associations between Things and Resources. Example: A car (resource) is moving along several streets (Things), changing this association in real time. other partners: please feel free to correct/complement my answers, Thank you in advance for your help, Fano you're welcome, cheers, Ricardo. PS: I've put the Fiware-data mailing list in the loop as obviously both chapters should synchronize on this issue De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ] De la part de Ricardo de las Heras Envoy? : mercredi 4 janvier 2012 10:03 ? : fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-iot] T5.2 slides Hi all, As you know, we have to deliver an Architecture Specification by end of January and deadline is approaching. This Architecture Specification should explain how the different GEs interact together and with the applications, going a step beyond from the very high-level figures we have designed so far. Elaborating on the interfaces the conceptual models to be supported. After some internal discussions at TID, we have come up with a draft Architecture for the Things Management Layer which is explained in the slides attached to this mail. We would like to rely on these slides to launch the discussion among partners in this task as well as the WPL and WPA, also involving some of the relevant partners from the Data/Context Management Chapter which may bring some pieces of the overall picture. I may elaborate on them during the phone call now if needed. Br, -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-data mailing list Fiware-data at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-data -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 518 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 488 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 467 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 494 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 360 bytes Desc: image005.gif URL: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Thu Jan 5 11:32:01 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 11:32:01 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Detailed Architecture FMC Diagrams Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD055CD798@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Dear all, I just uploaded the early versions of the diagrams into the project svn in yED format. Backend: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Backend.graphml Gateway: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Gateway.graphml I updated the yED stencil available on the wiki: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/FMC.graphml Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Thu Jan 5 11:55:36 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:55:36 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] GA agenda proposal In-Reply-To: References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED9C3@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDAAC@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, As advertised earlier, there will be a general assembly between 23-27 January. Below please find a first version of the agenda proposal from IoT perspective. The idea is to cover as much as possible in the first 3 days because people typically do not have time to spend a whole week. Please send comments/suggestions latest by tomorrow EOB. Thanks & Br, Lorant Agenda proposal for the GA Monday, 23 Jan 2011 14:30 - 19:00 - ETSI M2M (IoT internal session) -final discussion on subset of ETSI M2M specification on the southbound and northbound that will be implemented in the first minor/major release -translation of these specs to user stories -discussion on who will implement what over what asset from this Tuesday, 24 Jan 2011 9:00 - 12:30 - Architecture specification (IoT internal session) -Check status of subchapters per task, solve pending issues -Solve pending issues/inconsistencies between subchapters -Create first version of merged architecture deliverable 13:30 - 15:30 - NGSI (IoT internal session) -Come up with consistent proposal for the meeting with DCM WP for data format & interactions -Check open issues with the bindings (REST/SOAP) & other topics that come up 16:00 - 18:00 - asset integration (IoT internal session) - should be p2p sessions per tasks, not sure yet how to organize. Maybe extend to Thursday? -IoT comm: NSN (Cumulocity), Orange (Fosstrak), Ericsson (gateway), TI (Cloud edge?) -IoT RM: TID (IDAS), IoT-A (NEC), IoT-A (SAP) -IoT Data Handling: Orange (Fosstrak/Android CEP), NSN (Cumulocity), ATOS (C++ engine), Ericsson (gateway) -IoT Process automation: NEC (ISIS), NSN (task leader) Wednesday, 25 Jan 2011 9:00 - 11:00 - NGSI session (IoT / DCM common session) -Present IoT position -Present DCM position (TI) -Open discussion on the differences and trying to reach a resolution in the form of a final NGSI variant 11:30 - 13:00 - common I2ND / IoT session -kick off discussion on the S3C topic 13:30 - 15:00 - common I2ND / IoT session -continue discussion on the CE topic, CDI topic 15:30 - 17:30 - common IoT / Security session -TBD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Thu Jan 5 12:42:25 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:42:25 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [Fiware-wpa] Creation of linkedin group Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDB0C@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> FYI From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:41 PM To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Creation of linkedin group Dear WPLs & WPAs, We have set up a FI-WARE Linkedin group * http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 Please disseminate this within your respective chapters and encourage your WP members to join in! Thanks Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT332766.txt URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Jan 5 13:13:35 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:13:35 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] [Fiware-wpl] Creation of linkedin group Message-ID: Dear all, Please find the link to join linkedin FI-Ware community. This is a place where we can launch some discussions with the UC projects of course but also everybody who join the group to improve our vision of what we could deliver for a large Futrue Internet community. Feel free to disseminate the link. BR THierry De : fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Miguel Carrillo Envoy? : jeudi 5 janvier 2012 12:41 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] Creation of linkedin group Dear WPLs & WPAs, We have set up a FI-WARE Linkedin group * http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 Please disseminate this within your respective chapters and encourage your WP members to join in! Thanks Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From laurence1.dupont at orange.com Fri Jan 6 15:45:37 2012 From: laurence1.dupont at orange.com (laurence1.dupont at orange.com) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:45:37 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting minutes In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED62F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED62F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Please find enclosed : - asset matching ppt with Orange assets. - Proposal changes on architecture ppt Br, Laurence Dupont -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fiware-T5 2-Assets-matching-V1-Orange.pptx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 292469 bytes Desc: Fiware-T5 2-Assets-matching-V1-Orange.pptx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ThingsManagementArchitecture-v1.pptx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 126461 bytes Desc: ThingsManagementArchitecture-v1.pptx URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 9 07:46:37 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:46:37 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear Juanjo, The list of people in IoT interested in ETSI M2M is the following up to now: -Wafa Soubra (Orange) - confirmed -Jan H?ller (Ericsson) - confirmed -Jakob Saros (Ericsson) - confirmed -Francisco Oteiza Lacalle (TID) - confirmed -Gian Piero Fici (TI) - not confirmed (on holiday), but he is ETSI M2M expert so I expect that he would be interested -D?nes Bisztray (NSN) - confirmed -L?r?nt Farkas (NSN) - confirmed Could you please initiate the creation of an ETSI M2M mailing list? Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Mon Jan 9 09:14:51 2012 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:14:51 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F2A674@PALLENE.office.hd> Hi Juanjo, Lorant, just coming back from holidays. Please add from NEC side... - Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu - Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu - Martin Bauer Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu - Lindsay Frost (Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu) All also CC'ed here. One comment... ... we are currently trying to establish a study item in ETSI M2M on meaningful/semantic data to be included into ETSI M2M Rel >=2. ... we handle this as contributions from IoT-A and FIWare trying to push for the resources and entity concept ... of course, project internal alignment is very much welcome Please keep in mind as first actions from FiWare for influencing standardization. - Ern? From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 07:47 To: ext Juanjo Hierro Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-support at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Juanjo, The list of people in IoT interested in ETSI M2M is the following up to now: -Wafa Soubra (Orange) - confirmed -Jan H?ller (Ericsson) - confirmed -Jakob Saros (Ericsson) - confirmed -Francisco Oteiza Lacalle (TID) - confirmed -Gian Piero Fici (TI) - not confirmed (on holiday), but he is ETSI M2M expert so I expect that he would be interested -D?nes Bisztray (NSN) - confirmed -L?r?nt Farkas (NSN) - confirmed Could you please initiate the creation of an ETSI M2M mailing list? Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Mon Jan 9 10:34:46 2012 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:34:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list In-Reply-To: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F2A674@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F2A674@PALLENE.office.hd> Message-ID: <4F0AB4B6.2000608@tid.es> Hi All of them are on the list now. Lorant, is it you the one who is going to manage the list in the future? In that case I should give you the password. Regards, Miguel El 09/01/2012 9:14, Ernoe Kovacs escribi?: Hi Juanjo, Lorant, just coming back from holidays. Please add from NEC side? - Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu - Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu - Martin Bauer Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu - Lindsay Frost (Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu) All also CC?ed here. One comment... ... we are currently trying to establish a study item in ETSI M2M on meaningful/semantic data to be included into ETSI M2M Rel >=2. ? we handle this as contributions from IoT-A and FIWare trying to push for the resources and entity concept ? of course, project internal alignment is very much welcome Please keep in mind as first actions from FiWare for influencing standardization. - Ern? From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 07:47 To: ext Juanjo Hierro Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-support at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Juanjo, The list of people in IoT interested in ETSI M2M is the following up to now: -Wafa Soubra (Orange) - confirmed -Jan H?ller (Ericsson) - confirmed -Jakob Saros (Ericsson) ? confirmed -Francisco Oteiza Lacalle (TID) - confirmed -Gian Piero Fici (TI) ? not confirmed (on holiday), but he is ETSI M2M expert so I expect that he would be interested -D?nes Bisztray (NSN) - confirmed -L?r?nt Farkas (NSN) ? confirmed Could you please initiate the creation of an ETSI M2M mailing list? Thanks & Br, Lorant -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 9 10:35:46 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:35:46 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list In-Reply-To: <4F0AB4B6.2000608@tid.es> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F2A674@PALLENE.office.hd> <4F0AB4B6.2000608@tid.es> Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEE0BE@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear Miguel, Yes, please give me the password. Thanks & Br, Lorant From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:35 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Hi All of them are on the list now. Lorant, is it you the one who is going to manage the list in the future? In that case I should give you the password. Regards, Miguel El 09/01/2012 9:14, Ernoe Kovacs escribi?: Hi Juanjo, Lorant, just coming back from holidays. Please add from NEC side... - Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu - Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu - Martin Bauer Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu - Lindsay Frost (Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu) All also CC'ed here. One comment... ... we are currently trying to establish a study item in ETSI M2M on meaningful/semantic data to be included into ETSI M2M Rel >=2. ... we handle this as contributions from IoT-A and FIWare trying to push for the resources and entity concept ... of course, project internal alignment is very much welcome Please keep in mind as first actions from FiWare for influencing standardization. - Ern? From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 07:47 To: ext Juanjo Hierro Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-support at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Juanjo, The list of people in IoT interested in ETSI M2M is the following up to now: -Wafa Soubra (Orange) - confirmed -Jan H?ller (Ericsson) - confirmed -Jakob Saros (Ericsson) - confirmed -Francisco Oteiza Lacalle (TID) - confirmed -Gian Piero Fici (TI) - not confirmed (on holiday), but he is ETSI M2M expert so I expect that he would be interested -D?nes Bisztray (NSN) - confirmed -L?r?nt Farkas (NSN) - confirmed Could you please initiate the creation of an ETSI M2M mailing list? Thanks & Br, Lorant -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From fano.ramparany at orange.com Mon Jan 9 11:11:01 2012 From: fano.ramparany at orange.com (fano.ramparany at orange.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:11:01 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list (ETSI-M2M) In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEE0BE@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F2A674@PALLENE.office.hd> <4F0AB4B6.2000608@tid.es> <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEE0BE@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Hi Lorant and Miguel, Please add me (Fano Ramparany - fano.ramparany at orange.com) from FT side. I'll synchronize with my colleagues Gilles Privat and Patricia Martigne who are currently proposing a "generic physical entity model" in the ETSI-M2M working group. Regards, Fano De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Envoy? : lundi 9 janvier 2012 10:36 ? : ext Miguel Carrillo; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Miguel, Yes, please give me the password. Thanks & Br, Lorant From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:35 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Hi All of them are on the list now. Lorant, is it you the one who is going to manage the list in the future? In that case I should give you the password. Regards, Miguel El 09/01/2012 9:14, Ernoe Kovacs escribi?: Hi Juanjo, Lorant, just coming back from holidays. Please add from NEC side... - Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu - Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu - Martin Bauer Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu - Lindsay Frost (Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu) All also CC'ed here. One comment... ... we are currently trying to establish a study item in ETSI M2M on meaningful/semantic data to be included into ETSI M2M Rel >=2. ... we handle this as contributions from IoT-A and FIWare trying to push for the resources and entity concept ... of course, project internal alignment is very much welcome Please keep in mind as first actions from FiWare for influencing standardization. - Ern? From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 07:47 To: ext Juanjo Hierro Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-support at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Juanjo, The list of people in IoT interested in ETSI M2M is the following up to now: -Wafa Soubra (Orange) - confirmed -Jan H?ller (Ericsson) - confirmed -Jakob Saros (Ericsson) - confirmed -Francisco Oteiza Lacalle (TID) - confirmed -Gian Piero Fici (TI) - not confirmed (on holiday), but he is ETSI M2M expert so I expect that he would be interested -D?nes Bisztray (NSN) - confirmed -L?r?nt Farkas (NSN) - confirmed Could you please initiate the creation of an ETSI M2M mailing list? Thanks & Br, Lorant -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From olaf.renner at nsn.com Mon Jan 9 16:03:56 2012 From: olaf.renner at nsn.com (Renner, Olaf (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:03:56 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list (ETSI-M2M) In-Reply-To: References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEDF28@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F2A674@PALLENE.office.hd> <4F0AB4B6.2000608@tid.es> <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DEE0BE@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Hi, Could you please add me as well to list Olaf Renner - olaf.renner at nsn.com Thanks Olaf From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext fano.ramparany at orange.com Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:11 AM To: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); mcp at tid.es; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: patricia.martigne at orange.com; gilles.privat at orange.com Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list (ETSI-M2M) Hi Lorant and Miguel, Please add me (Fano Ramparany - fano.ramparany at orange.com) from FT side. I'll synchronize with my colleagues Gilles Privat and Patricia Martigne who are currently proposing a "generic physical entity model" in the ETSI-M2M working group. Regards, Fano De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Envoy? : lundi 9 janvier 2012 10:36 ? : ext Miguel Carrillo; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Miguel, Yes, please give me the password. Thanks & Br, Lorant From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:35 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Hi All of them are on the list now. Lorant, is it you the one who is going to manage the list in the future? In that case I should give you the password. Regards, Miguel El 09/01/2012 9:14, Ernoe Kovacs escribi?: Hi Juanjo, Lorant, just coming back from holidays. Please add from NEC side... - Ernoe Kovacs Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu - Tobias Jacobs Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu - Martin Bauer Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu - Lindsay Frost (Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu) All also CC'ed here. One comment... ... we are currently trying to establish a study item in ETSI M2M on meaningful/semantic data to be included into ETSI M2M Rel >=2. ... we handle this as contributions from IoT-A and FIWare trying to push for the resources and entity concept ... of course, project internal alignment is very much welcome Please keep in mind as first actions from FiWare for influencing standardization. - Ern? From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 07:47 To: ext Juanjo Hierro Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-support at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for new mailing list Dear Juanjo, The list of people in IoT interested in ETSI M2M is the following up to now: -Wafa Soubra (Orange) - confirmed -Jan H?ller (Ericsson) - confirmed -Jakob Saros (Ericsson) - confirmed -Francisco Oteiza Lacalle (TID) - confirmed -Gian Piero Fici (TI) - not confirmed (on holiday), but he is ETSI M2M expert so I expect that he would be interested -D?nes Bisztray (NSN) - confirmed -L?r?nt Farkas (NSN) - confirmed Could you please initiate the creation of an ETSI M2M mailing list? Thanks & Br, Lorant -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From olaf.renner at nsn.com Mon Jan 9 16:12:39 2012 From: olaf.renner at nsn.com (Renner, Olaf (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:12:39 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Cross-chapter taskforces In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD054EBFAA@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD054EBFAA@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Hi Denes, all haven't seen any response yet, but yes add me to the fiware-middleware list if this is still set up. Br Olaf From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 9:58 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Cross-chapter taskforces Importance: High Dear All, New cross-chapter taskforces are set up in several topics. We have to delegate people to three of these taskforces. I would like to introduce the taskforces and give some advice on project members to include in them. 1. Generalized Thing-level Event Management model. The thing-level abstraction of event management used in IoT and DCM need to be consistent. Also, this model can be generalised to "Monitoring Agents" and "Monitoring Resources" so that Cloud Monitoring and Security Event Monitoring can use it. The task force should work on the adoption of the IoT Event Management Model. I would like to delegate someone from NEC, either Tobias, Martin or Salvatore. The mailing list will be: fiware-monitoring 2. Middleware Interfaces We need a common way to specify interfaces between GEs. (use a common interface technology, or maybe interface definition language that can translate to various technologies to remain future-proof) The delegation here is not obvious, but should include: Olaf Renner (NSN), Gian Piero Fici (TI), Tobias or Martin (NEC), Laurent or Laurence (Orange), Ricardo (TID) The mailing list will be: fiware-middleware 3. Semantic Web Infrastructure Several chapters addressing development of GEs whose implementation relies on Semantic Web technologies. We should go for the selection of a single technology for this (mostly RDF storage and SPARQL support). I would like to delegate someone from UoS, possibly Payam. The mailing list will be: fiware-semantic-platform Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rheras at tid.es Mon Jan 9 16:54:09 2012 From: rheras at tid.es (Ricardo de las Heras) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:54:09 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting minutes In-Reply-To: References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202DED62F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <4F0B0DA1.4010000@tid.es> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Tue Jan 10 09:27:29 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:27:29 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55270@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> When: 2012. janu?r 11. 10:00-11:30 (GMT+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague. Where: telco/webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Dear All, The proposed agenda topics for tomorrow are: 1. Architecture specifications - review of the progress and technical discussion 2. Preparations for the GA: discuss topics for the proposed (internal + cross WP) meetings Thanks & Br, Lorant Dear All, Let's resume our weekly meeting starting from next week in the usual day/time, which is Wednesday, 10:00 AM (CET) to 11:30. Either WPL or WPA will be present to host the meeting. In case we find good reason to skip the meeting, then we will skip it, but I propose not to deviate from this slot. Thanks & Br, Lorant Topic: IOT WP weekly Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, 10 August 2011 to Wednesday, 26 March 2014 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 709 472 921 Meeting Password: FI-WARE ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&RT=MTgjMjM%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: FI-WARE 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&ORT=MTgjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- NSN Voice Conference information Conference ID: 58465 New PIN: 9369002 Making a conference call * from the office: 8071870 (in Finland and Germany) * from out of office: +358 7180 71870 (in Finland) and +49 89 5159 43800 (in Germany) All out-of-office conference access numbers are listed in page https://inside.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/MyServices/IT/Infrastructure_Services/RealTimeCommunication/VoiceService/NSNVoiceConference/MakingaCall/LocalAccessNumbers/Pages/Outofofficenumbers.aspx. Please check and prioritize them. If there is no access number for your country then please use access numbers of the area where to the calling costs are lowest. ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: lorant.farkas at nsn.com Argentina - Buenos Aires +54 11 5983 9400 (PRIMARY) or +54 11 4814 9373 Argentina - Cordoba +54 35 1568 2208 Australia - Sydney +61 28 014 7189 (PRIMARY) or +61 29 429 9664 Australia - Melbourne +61 38 739 4333 Austria +43 72 088 0245 Bahrain +97 31 619 9028 Belgium - Generic +32 1448 0116 Belgium - Diegem-Machelen +32 2710 3300 Brazil - Belo Horizonte +55 31 3956 0546 Brazil - Brazil +55 61 3717 2043 Brazil - Curitiba +55 41 3906 0826 Brazil - Manaus +55 92 3652 7576 Brazil - Rio De Janeiro +55 21 3958 0804 (PRIMARY) or +55 21 3431 1999 Brazil - Salvador +55 71 3717 5351 Brazil - Sao Paolo +55 11 5508 0630 Bulgaria +359 2491 7085 Canada - Ajax +1 90 5619 4346 Canada - Burnaby +1 60 4456 5897 Canada - Hamilton +1 905 581 0212 Canada - Mississauga +1 289 360 3950 Canada - Montreal +1 51 4789 9125 Canada - Ottawa +1 61 3800 0568 Chile - Santiago +56 2350 6485 China - Mainland +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Beijing +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Chengdu +86 28 8689 0188 ext 1870 China - Dongguan +86 0769 2240 2844 ext 1870 China - Guangzhou +86 20 8755 6190 ext 1870 China - Hangzhou +86 571 8722 0877 ext 1870 China - Hong Kong +852 259 70220 ext 1870 China - Kunming +86 871 362 2880 ext 1870 China - Shanghai +86 21 6101 1870 ext 1870 China - ShenZhen +86 755 8613 3688 ext 1870 China - Suzhou +86 512 6761 6166 ext 1870 China - Zhengzhou +86 371 6566 9768 ext 1870 Colombia +57 1640 7979 ext 444 Croatia +38 51 777 6122 Czech Republic +42 02 460 19300 Denmark +45 699 18450 (PRIMARY) or +45 3329 2882 Egypt +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Estonia +37 266 67297 Finland +358 7180 71870 France +33 17 061 7813 (PRIMARY) or +33 14 915 1553 Germany +49 89 5159 43800 Greece +30 21 1176 8207 (PRIMARY) or +30 21 1120 3677 Hungary - Budapest +36 17 009 888 Hungary - Kom?rom +36 20 884 2499 India 000 800 100 7777 Indonesia - Jakarta (Menara Mulia/Plaza Kuningan +62 21 2557 9102 Indonesia - Bandung +62 22 8427 5992 Indonesia - Medan +62 61 3001 2702 Indonesia - Semarang +62 24 3300 0702 Ireland +353 1526 2862 Israel +97 29 775 1700 Italy - Milan +39 024 004 2007 Italy - Rome +39 069 481 6656 Japan +81 3 4578 0230 (PRIMARY) or +81 3 5474 7979 Kuwait +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Latvia +37 16 765 2510 Lithuania +37 0 5205 8994 Luxembourg +352 2088 0106 Malaysia +60 323 029 009 Mexico - Mexico City +52 55 3686 9759 (PRIMARY) or +52 55 5261 7245 Mexico - Reynosa +52 89 9909 1555 Netherlands +31 79 346 5225 New Zealand +64 9306 6933 Norway - Oslo +47 21 548 223 Oman +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Pakistan +92 512 092 444 Panama +507 832 7981 Peru +51 1708 5370 (PRIMARY) or +51 1215 7650 Philippines +63 2754 1700 Poland - Warsaw +48 22 398 8116 Poland - Wroclaw +48 71 718 1215 Portugal +351 21 044 4698 Qatar +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Romania +40 36 440 3799 Russia +74 95 725 2706 Saudi Arabia +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Singapore +65 3103 1065 (PRIMARY) or +65 6723 2582 Slovakia +42 12 3300 6924 Slovenia +38 61 600 2713 South Africa - Johannesburg +27 1 0500 2221 South Africa - Pretoria +27 1 2004 2334 South Korea - Masan +82 5 5290 7690 South Korea - Seoul +82 2 2186 5088 Spain +349 1187 5929 Sweden +46 85 250 0862 (PRIMARY), +46 84 100 9299 Switzerland +41 44 279 7943 Taiwan +88 62 8175 9298 Thailand +66 2762 6750 Turkey +90 216 570 2345 Ukraine +38 044 520 2272 UK +44 12 5275 8334 UK - Camberley +44 12 5286 5849 UK - Church Crookham +44 12 5261 1100 UK - Huntingdon +44 14 8087 8220 (PRIMARY), +44 14 8044 4206 UK - London +44 20 3318 1924 United Arab Emirates +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) USA - Alpharetta +1 770 871 3050 USA - Arizona +1 480 588 3748 USA - Atlanta +1 404 236 4550 USA - Atlanta Notheast +1 678 317 3165 USA - Austin/Round Rock +1 512 600 2027 USA - Belleville +1 973 547 7982 USA - Boca Raton +1 561 910 2843 USA - Boston +1 617 963 8320 (PRIMARY) or +1 781 993 4850 USA - Burlington +1 781 993 4850 USA - Calabasas +1 818 914 0215 USA - Canoga Park +1 818 914 0215 USA - Cary +1 919 655 1388 USA - Chelmsford/Littleton +1 978 679 0233 USA - Chicago +1 773 303 4710 USA - Dallas +1 214 269 7626 USA - Dallas/Fort Worth +1 214 270 0352 USA - Greenville, NC +1 252 329 1677 USA - Herndon +1 703 483 4485 USA - Johnson City +1 423 952 1545 USA - Kirkland +1 425 242 3113 USA - Miami +1 786 388 4150 or +1 786 329 7177 USA - Naperville +1 630 596 2203 USA - New Brunswick +1 732 579 6483 USA - New Century, KS +1 913 254 5900 USA - New York White Plains +1 914 368 0650 USA - New York Peekskill, White Plains +1 914 293 1885 USA - Palo Alto +1 650 644 1349 USA - Redmond +1 425 242 3113 USA - San Diego +1 858 769 5309 or +1 619 330 9699 USA - Sunnyvale +1 408 419 1750 USA - Washington D.C +1 202 552 4781 Vietnam +84 4 3724 6110 Yemen +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meeting.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 10454 bytes Desc: not available URL: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 08:27:58 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:27:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Architecture Description on the Private Wiki Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05618E1B@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Because of the impending deliverable on architecture, I started to create a detailed architecture description on our private wiki on the link below: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/iot/index.php/Main_Page#Detailed_Architecture_Specification Currently only the Gateway part is close to completion. Dear Task Leaders, please feel free to modify and expand it. Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu Wed Jan 11 09:33:11 2012 From: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu (Martin Bauer) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:33:11 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Message-ID: Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Wed Jan 11 09:45:17 2012 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:45:17 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] [FIWare/IoT-A] ETSI Contribution: Proposal for a new study item with IoT concepts from FIWare/IoT-A Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F30430@PALLENE.office.hd> Hi all, I like to make you aware of a proposal for a new study item in ETSI M2M on "Semantic Support for M2M Data". The proposed study is originating from respective activities in FIWare and IoT-A. I like to announce this as standardization activities from FIWare and IoT-A. It includes concepts that are currently being discussed, e.g. - the thing-or-entity/resource concept - the semantic aspect of IoT - the discovery aspect of things-or-entities/resources Please get your organizations involved to support this proposed study item. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEC contributions for next week's ETSI M2M#18 meeting. Links: http://docbox.etsi.org/M2M/M2M/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2012//M2M(12)18_006_Study_on_Semantic_support_for_M2M_Data.zip http://docbox.etsi.org/M2M/M2M/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2012//M2M(12)18_031_3_Steps_towards_Semantic_Support_for_M2M_Data.pptx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M2M(12)18_031_3_Steps_towards_Semantic_Support_for_M2M_Data.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 789003 bytes Desc: M2M(12)18_031_3_Steps_towards_Semantic_Support_for_M2M_Data.pptx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M2M(12)18_006_Study_on_Semantic_support_for_M2M_Data.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 81724 bytes Desc: M2M(12)18_006_Study_on_Semantic_support_for_M2M_Data.zip URL: From Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu Wed Jan 11 09:52:44 2012 From: Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu (Ernoe Kovacs) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:52:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55270@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55270@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <8152E2132B13FB488CFD1947E2DEF19C24F306E4@PALLENE.office.hd> Lorant, would it be possible to add an agenda item today on Standardization activities from FIWare. Two sub-bullets: - for the standardization deliverable (due End January), each work package need to contribute and refine the standardization strategy. WP5 need to start this. - I like to briefly explain the just sent around proposal to ETSI on a new study on "Semantic Support for M2M Data" If possible, can we have the discussion at the beginning of the meeting, as I have to drop out at 10:40 for visitors to our lab. Thank you, this would be great... Ern? From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2012 09:27 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting When: 2012. janu?r 11. 10:00-11:30 (GMT+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague. Where: telco/webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Dear All, The proposed agenda topics for tomorrow are: 1. Architecture specifications - review of the progress and technical discussion 2. Preparations for the GA: discuss topics for the proposed (internal + cross WP) meetings Thanks & Br, Lorant Dear All, Let's resume our weekly meeting starting from next week in the usual day/time, which is Wednesday, 10:00 AM (CET) to 11:30. Either WPL or WPA will be present to host the meeting. In case we find good reason to skip the meeting, then we will skip it, but I propose not to deviate from this slot. Thanks & Br, Lorant Topic: IOT WP weekly Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, 10 August 2011 to Wednesday, 26 March 2014 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 709 472 921 Meeting Password: FI-WARE ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&RT=MTgjMjM%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: FI-WARE 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&ORT=MTgjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- NSN Voice Conference information Conference ID: 58465 New PIN: 9369002 Making a conference call * from the office: 8071870 (in Finland and Germany) * from out of office: +358 7180 71870 (in Finland) and +49 89 5159 43800 (in Germany) All out-of-office conference access numbers are listed in page https://inside.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/MyServices/IT/Infrastructure_Services/RealTimeCommunication/VoiceService/NSNVoiceConference/MakingaCall/LocalAccessNumbers/Pages/Outofofficenumbers.aspx. Please check and prioritize them. If there is no access number for your country then please use access numbers of the area where to the calling costs are lowest. ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: lorant.farkas at nsn.com Argentina - Buenos Aires +54 11 5983 9400 (PRIMARY) or +54 11 4814 9373 Argentina - Cordoba +54 35 1568 2208 Australia - Sydney +61 28 014 7189 (PRIMARY) or +61 29 429 9664 Australia - Melbourne +61 38 739 4333 Austria +43 72 088 0245 Bahrain +97 31 619 9028 Belgium - Generic +32 1448 0116 Belgium - Diegem-Machelen +32 2710 3300 Brazil - Belo Horizonte +55 31 3956 0546 Brazil - Brazil +55 61 3717 2043 Brazil - Curitiba +55 41 3906 0826 Brazil - Manaus +55 92 3652 7576 Brazil - Rio De Janeiro +55 21 3958 0804 (PRIMARY) or +55 21 3431 1999 Brazil - Salvador +55 71 3717 5351 Brazil - Sao Paolo +55 11 5508 0630 Bulgaria +359 2491 7085 Canada - Ajax +1 90 5619 4346 Canada - Burnaby +1 60 4456 5897 Canada - Hamilton +1 905 581 0212 Canada - Mississauga +1 289 360 3950 Canada - Montreal +1 51 4789 9125 Canada - Ottawa +1 61 3800 0568 Chile - Santiago +56 2350 6485 China - Mainland +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Beijing +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Chengdu +86 28 8689 0188 ext 1870 China - Dongguan +86 0769 2240 2844 ext 1870 China - Guangzhou +86 20 8755 6190 ext 1870 China - Hangzhou +86 571 8722 0877 ext 1870 China - Hong Kong +852 259 70220 ext 1870 China - Kunming +86 871 362 2880 ext 1870 China - Shanghai +86 21 6101 1870 ext 1870 China - ShenZhen +86 755 8613 3688 ext 1870 China - Suzhou +86 512 6761 6166 ext 1870 China - Zhengzhou +86 371 6566 9768 ext 1870 Colombia +57 1640 7979 ext 444 Croatia +38 51 777 6122 Czech Republic +42 02 460 19300 Denmark +45 699 18450 (PRIMARY) or +45 3329 2882 Egypt +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Estonia +37 266 67297 Finland +358 7180 71870 France +33 17 061 7813 (PRIMARY) or +33 14 915 1553 Germany +49 89 5159 43800 Greece +30 21 1176 8207 (PRIMARY) or +30 21 1120 3677 Hungary - Budapest +36 17 009 888 Hungary - Kom?rom +36 20 884 2499 India 000 800 100 7777 Indonesia - Jakarta (Menara Mulia/Plaza Kuningan +62 21 2557 9102 Indonesia - Bandung +62 22 8427 5992 Indonesia - Medan +62 61 3001 2702 Indonesia - Semarang +62 24 3300 0702 Ireland +353 1526 2862 Israel +97 29 775 1700 Italy - Milan +39 024 004 2007 Italy - Rome +39 069 481 6656 Japan +81 3 4578 0230 (PRIMARY) or +81 3 5474 7979 Kuwait +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Latvia +37 16 765 2510 Lithuania +37 0 5205 8994 Luxembourg +352 2088 0106 Malaysia +60 323 029 009 Mexico - Mexico City +52 55 3686 9759 (PRIMARY) or +52 55 5261 7245 Mexico - Reynosa +52 89 9909 1555 Netherlands +31 79 346 5225 New Zealand +64 9306 6933 Norway - Oslo +47 21 548 223 Oman +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Pakistan +92 512 092 444 Panama +507 832 7981 Peru +51 1708 5370 (PRIMARY) or +51 1215 7650 Philippines +63 2754 1700 Poland - Warsaw +48 22 398 8116 Poland - Wroclaw +48 71 718 1215 Portugal +351 21 044 4698 Qatar +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Romania +40 36 440 3799 Russia +74 95 725 2706 Saudi Arabia +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Singapore +65 3103 1065 (PRIMARY) or +65 6723 2582 Slovakia +42 12 3300 6924 Slovenia +38 61 600 2713 South Africa - Johannesburg +27 1 0500 2221 South Africa - Pretoria +27 1 2004 2334 South Korea - Masan +82 5 5290 7690 South Korea - Seoul +82 2 2186 5088 Spain +349 1187 5929 Sweden +46 85 250 0862 (PRIMARY), +46 84 100 9299 Switzerland +41 44 279 7943 Taiwan +88 62 8175 9298 Thailand +66 2762 6750 Turkey +90 216 570 2345 Ukraine +38 044 520 2272 UK +44 12 5275 8334 UK - Camberley +44 12 5286 5849 UK - Church Crookham +44 12 5261 1100 UK - Huntingdon +44 14 8087 8220 (PRIMARY), +44 14 8044 4206 UK - London +44 20 3318 1924 United Arab Emirates +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) USA - Alpharetta +1 770 871 3050 USA - Arizona +1 480 588 3748 USA - Atlanta +1 404 236 4550 USA - Atlanta Notheast +1 678 317 3165 USA - Austin/Round Rock +1 512 600 2027 USA - Belleville +1 973 547 7982 USA - Boca Raton +1 561 910 2843 USA - Boston +1 617 963 8320 (PRIMARY) or +1 781 993 4850 USA - Burlington +1 781 993 4850 USA - Calabasas +1 818 914 0215 USA - Canoga Park +1 818 914 0215 USA - Cary +1 919 655 1388 USA - Chelmsford/Littleton +1 978 679 0233 USA - Chicago +1 773 303 4710 USA - Dallas +1 214 269 7626 USA - Dallas/Fort Worth +1 214 270 0352 USA - Greenville, NC +1 252 329 1677 USA - Herndon +1 703 483 4485 USA - Johnson City +1 423 952 1545 USA - Kirkland +1 425 242 3113 USA - Miami +1 786 388 4150 or +1 786 329 7177 USA - Naperville +1 630 596 2203 USA - New Brunswick +1 732 579 6483 USA - New Century, KS +1 913 254 5900 USA - New York White Plains +1 914 368 0650 USA - New York Peekskill, White Plains +1 914 293 1885 USA - Palo Alto +1 650 644 1349 USA - Redmond +1 425 242 3113 USA - San Diego +1 858 769 5309 or +1 619 330 9699 USA - Sunnyvale +1 408 419 1750 USA - Washington D.C +1 202 552 4781 Vietnam +84 4 3724 6110 Yemen +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 13:51:33 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:51:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I'm sharing Martin's concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 13:56:25 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:56:25 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting minutes Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55B00@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Please find the meeting minutes under this link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/717/IoT-Minutes-Telco-110120 12.docx Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu Wed Jan 11 13:58:02 2012 From: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu (Martin Bauer) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:58:02 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be "Actuation IoT Resources" and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I'm sharing Martin's concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 15:58:12 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:58:12 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Hi all, Other questions emerge from Ricardo's slide: - The slide description says that the Configuration Repository contains "What are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves". However, the Inference Engine contains Association Rules. What are the difference between these two? - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? - The actuation part is definitely missing from the sketch. It is important to cater for that need. Either the Configuration Management or the Inference Engien should contain some kind of execution component that resolves the tasking requests toward devices or gateways. This is a first batch of questions. I hope they do make sense. Best, D?nes From: ext Martin Bauer [mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be "Actuation IoT Resources" and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I'm sharing Martin's concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 16:54:31 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:54:31 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] request for change in the agenda Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55C55@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear Pier, First of all, Happy New Year! :-) Second, would you mind if we asked for a change in the agenda, namely, to have our cross WP meeting some time between 14:00 - 15:30, instead of 11:30 - 13:00. The reason is that WP6 proposed an extension of the slot in the morning for cross WP5/WP6 and they sent quite a detailed agenda as argumentation. Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 16:55:41 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:55:41 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: Joint IoT - Data/Context Management Chapters meeting during plenary in Madrid Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55C5A@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Detailed agenda proposal for the cross WP5/WP6 meeting, from WP6, including a request for extension of the duration to 4 hours. We tentatively said yes. Thanks & Br, Lorant From: ext Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:03 PM To: thierry.nagellen at orange.com Cc: CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); RICARDO DE LAS HERAS MARTIN; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Re: Joint IoT - Data/Context Management Chapters meeting during plenary in Madrid On 11/01/12 15:03, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Der all, As you know we sent our agenda at the beginning of this week and we have a positive answer from I2ND for the cross-WP meeting on Wednesday. On the condition there is a detailed agenda for a 4 hours meeting and that I2ND is willing to shift to early afternoon our cross-WP meeting, we could have this full morning with WP6. Of course, to have a fruitful meeting, we would have a clear architecture description of WP6 issues related to WP5 Internet of Things to be able to prepare the meeting from our side. For the time being, we have planned to exchange on NGSI 9-10 and how can reach a common format. I believe we should be able to cover CEP (Complex Event Processing) as well. What is the role expected in IoT and how it relates with CEP GEs to be developed in the Data/Context Management Chapter. Regarding CEP, first we have to evaluate whether a single CEP implementation would be feasible, which could be instantiated both in centralized data centers of a Cloud-oriented IoT solution as well as in distributed nodes of a IoT network, of if we have to go with two different variants of CEP implementations, one "fully-equipped" from a functional perspective, designed to handle large amount of data and expected to run on centralized servers and another "lite" one suited to run on distributed nodes of the IoT network. If we go for the second case, then we should solve how the different type of CEP implementation instances are going to be federated in a distributed architecture. My proposal would be to devote 2h45m to discuss on NGSI which is the most crucial thing. Then followed by a break of 15m, and then devote 1h to discuss on CEP. Regarding the agenda, about NGSI, I would propose the following agenda: * Presentation on proposed approach about the role of NGSI at the Things/Resource Management Layer (30 mins) * Here I propose to elaborate on the proposal made by Telefonica, integrating the results of the discussions that will take place until the f2f meeting in Madrid (which, nicely, have just started on the mailing list). * I suggest that Telefonica makes this presentation (I have included Ricardo in this email so that he gets aware of the discussion) * Data (Context Elements) format requirements from an IoT perspective (30 mins) * We should make sure that NGSI helps us to deal with the kind of data coming from sensors that is required in the IoT space. The idea of this presentation would be that of making it clear what are the requirements in this respect, that implementations of the NGSI interface have to support * You know better than me who should be assigned to made this presentation also from the IoT team. * Issues with current OMA NGSI specifications (30 mins) * Telecom Italia has expressed their concerns about trying to be "to strict" with respect to going for a full compliance of the OMA NGSI specs as they are today. They argue that there are some gaps but also some aspects that has been better to drop or fix, when trying to deliver a product that works, from a pragmatic point of view. It's time then to learn what these concrete points are, and try to start agreeing what things of the OMA NGSI we will take as they are, and what others we will simply fix it (with the intend to fast-track them as changes in OMA) * Clearly, Telecom Italia may take this slot. Another possibility is that NEC makes a complementary presentation (the two being 40 mins maximum) * Brainstorming discussion. I would suggest booking 45 mins at least * Focused on making progress on agreements and overall view of the Architecture. * Wrap-up of conclusions and next steps: 30 mins. Regarding the agenda about CEP, my first take would be: * CEP in a distributed IoT architecture (20 mins) * I would suggest someone from the IoT team illustrates how CEP could be collocated in distributed nodes and then elaborate on how the different CEPs (running on distributed nodes and the central servers, may be federated). A particular topic I'm interested in is to learn how we are envisioning CEP engines at the distributed nodes be able to coexist with usage of the M2M-ETSI API * You know better than me who should be assigned to made this presentation also from the IoT team. * Detailed view of the CEP GE under development in the Data/Context Management chapter (20 mins) * Self-explanatory * IBM would take care of it * Brainstorming Discussion (20 mins?) * Wrap-up (20 mins?) As you see, even 4 hours may not be enough ... One thing we could do is to split the two topics and discuss then in separate timeslots. The issue there is that I believe that putting them together gives us more flexibility because we can extend the NGSI slot at the price of reducing the one on CEP if that is required (NGSI certainly has to be solved with the highest priority). We will ask I2ND to move our common slot only if we have these 2 elements (agenda and architecture description)the latest by Thursday next week to be able to exchange with all IoT partners involved into the relevant tasks. I agree. That's why, as per the agenda, I have put a first draft on the table ;-) Regarding the architecture, I expect that the discussion over the email may lead to some fruits before the meeting and, as a consequence, there will be something. Feedback is welcome. Best regards, -- Juanjo Best regards Thierry -----Message d'origine----- De : Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Envoy? : mercredi 11 janvier 2012 12:20 ? : NAGELLEN Thierry RD-BIZZ-SOP; Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Cc : CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Objet : Joint IoT - Data/Context Management Chapters meeting during plenary in Madrid Hi Thierry and Lorant, We have to book a joint IoT-Data meeting during the week in Madrid. I would suggest to spend the whole morning one of these days ... we definitively have to settle down how the Reference Architecture in IoT will be capable to integrate with the Data Reference Architecture in the Data/Context Management chapter and how we can agree on a single approach for implementing the Publish/Subscribe GE. I believe that we agreed on Wednesday morning. I suggest to book the whole Wednesday morning. Please confirm. I copy Carlos Ralli, who has been appointed leader of the Data/Context Management Chapter (I was performing as "acting" until he could join the project) Looking forward your response, -- ------------- Juanjo Hierro Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital email: 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 11 16:57:29 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:57:29 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: Plenary meeting in Madrid Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55C5F@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, FYI, this is the confirmation that we have a plenary on Wednesday starting from 15:30. Thanks & Br, Lorant From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Miguel Carrillo Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:50 PM To: fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: Plenary meeting in Madrid -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: Plenary meeting in Madrid Fecha: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:42:37 +0100 De: Miguel Carrillo A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, This is just to confirm that we have (luckily) managed to get a free slot in the auditorium. The capacity is 70 seats + 5 at the table, we'll have to manage with that. The meeting will start at 3:30pm and it will take place on Wednesday, 25. The idea is to let you know the timeslot to leave it free on your WP agendas (I guess yuo are working on them already). The contents of this meeting and further details will come later. Regards, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT1340505.txt URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Thu Jan 12 08:50:28 2012 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:50:28 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] R: request for change in the agenda In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55C55@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E55C55@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Dear Lorant, Happy New Year too :) It doesn't seem there are issues to shift the IoT-I2ND session to the afternoon; we planned internal sessions there, hence no interaction with other WPs to be managed. So le't give it for done: IoT-I2ND session will be on Wed @14:00-15:30. My only concern is that we don't exactly know the time for lunch, I hope it will be possible to allocate the expected 1.5h for our discussions. BR Pier Da: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:lorant.farkas at nsn.com] Inviato: mercoled? 11 gennaio 2012 16:55 A: Garino Pierangelo Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: request for change in the agenda Dear Pier, First of all, Happy New Year! :) Second, would you mind if we asked for a change in the agenda, namely, to have our cross WP meeting some time between 14:00 - 15:30, instead of 11:30 - 13:00. The reason is that WP6 proposed an extension of the slot in the morning for cross WP5/WP6 and they sent quite a detailed agenda as argumentation. Thanks & Br, Lorant 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: -------------- 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Thu Jan 12 12:52:57 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:52:57 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] updates on the GA agenda Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E56047@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear All, Attached an updated agenda on the IoT side. <> Concerning the rest of week after Wednesday please be informed that: 1. WP11/ATOS wants a whole day meeting on Friday about dissemination (Ern? wasn't it so that now NEC leads this WP??), see attached e-mail <<[Fiware] FW: Meeting organization in Madrid>> 2. There was a proposal from someone to have 2 joint sessions, one with Tools and the second with Security, on Thursday morning, but none of these were confirmed yet. I would like to ask 3 things from each of the partners: 1. To mark in each slot from our agenda proposal (Monday - Wednesday) in which of the meetings will the partner attend and with how many persons 2. Whether you are interested to participate in cross sections with Tools and Security Thursday morning, and with how many persons, in case these cross sections will materialize. Please provide the input as soon as possible. Would be nice if I could provide this info at 3 o'clock to the coordinator. Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: v02_FIWare-GM-Madrid-IoT Agenda.xlsx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 13286 bytes Desc: v02_FIWare-GM-Madrid-IoT Agenda.xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?ext_Juan_Bare=F1o_Guerenabarrena?= Subject: [Fiware] FW: Meeting organization in Madrid Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:27 +0200 Size: 112569 URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Jan 12 13:51:48 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:51:48 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] updates on the GA agenda In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E56047@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E56047@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Hi Lorant For Orange, Ms Wafa Soubra will attend the ETSI M2M session, M Laurent Artusio will attend all sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday. And myself of course for the 3 days. BR Thierry De : fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Envoy? : jeudi 12 janvier 2012 12:53 ? : fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-iot] updates on the GA agenda Dear All, Attached an updated agenda on the IoT side. <> Concerning the rest of week after Wednesday please be informed that: 1. WP11/ATOS wants a whole day meeting on Friday about dissemination (Ern? wasn't it so that now NEC leads this WP??), see attached e-mail <<[Fiware] FW: Meeting organization in Madrid>> 2. There was a proposal from someone to have 2 joint sessions, one with Tools and the second with Security, on Thursday morning, but none of these were confirmed yet. I would like to ask 3 things from each of the partners: 1. To mark in each slot from our agenda proposal (Monday - Wednesday) in which of the meetings will the partner attend and with how many persons 2. Whether you are interested to participate in cross sections with Tools and Security Thursday morning, and with how many persons, in case these cross sections will materialize. Please provide the input as soon as possible. Would be nice if I could provide this info at 3 o'clock to the coordinator. Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu Thu Jan 12 17:39:07 2012 From: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu (Martin Bauer) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:39:07 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] updates on the GA agenda In-Reply-To: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E56047@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> References: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E56047@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: Hi Lorant, all, Just one comment: NEC is leading the standardization task, not the complete work package. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2012 12:53 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] updates on the GA agenda Dear All, Attached an updated agenda on the IoT side. <> Concerning the rest of week after Wednesday please be informed that: 1. WP11/ATOS wants a whole day meeting on Friday about dissemination (Ern? wasn't it so that now NEC leads this WP??), see attached e-mail <<[Fiware] FW: Meeting organization in Madrid>> 2. There was a proposal from someone to have 2 joint sessions, one with Tools and the second with Security, on Thursday morning, but none of these were confirmed yet. I would like to ask 3 things from each of the partners: 1. To mark in each slot from our agenda proposal (Monday - Wednesday) in which of the meetings will the partner attend and with how many persons 2. Whether you are interested to participate in cross sections with Tools and Security Thursday morning, and with how many persons, in case these cross sections will materialize. Please provide the input as soon as possible. Would be nice if I could provide this info at 3 o'clock to the coordinator. Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it Thu Jan 12 18:00:07 2012 From: sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it (Guerra Sabrina) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:00:07 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] R: Detailed Architecture FMC Diagrams In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD055CD798@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD055CD798@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A595595126@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Hi Denes, in order to contribute to these diagrams for the Backend and the Gateway, we would like to clear some points: * Why is the "Connectivity Management GE" different in the Backend.graphml and in the Gateway.graphml? * What is the connection logic of the "Connectivity Management GE" components in the Backend.graphml? What is the "Connectivity Cache" store? * In the Backend.graphml the components of "Connectivity Control GE" are splitted in two sections: * First section in which only the "Access Control Policy" is shown * Second section in which the "Traffic Flow Management" and "Quality of Service Control" are in a dashed rectagular line. Why this split? Does the dashed line indicate that the components are optional? Thanks in advance for your help. We appreciate your work and we would like to contribute to it. Best regards, Sabrina Guerra __________________________________ Telecom Italia S.p.a. Strategia e Innovazione, Research & Trends Telefono +39 011 228 8359 Cellulare +39 331 600 1349 ________________________________ Da: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) Inviato: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:32 AM A: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-iot] Detailed Architecture FMC Diagrams Dear all, I just uploaded the early versions of the diagrams into the project svn in yED format. Backend: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Backend.graphml Gateway: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Gateway.graphml I updated the yED stencil available on the wiki: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/FMC.graphml Best, D?nes 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: -------------- 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: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Fri Jan 13 08:13:31 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:13:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Detailed Architecture FMC Diagrams In-Reply-To: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A595595126@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD055CD798@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A595595126@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05653D4A@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Hi Sabrina, What you describe is the Wednesday's situation when I mentioned in the confcall that the backend was essentially not worked on at all. I corrected this problem and detailed the necessary GEs (except resource management). Can you please check it again? Best, D?nes From: ext Guerra Sabrina [mailto:sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:00 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) Cc: 'fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: R: Detailed Architecture FMC Diagrams Hi Denes, in order to contribute to these diagrams for the Backend and the Gateway, we would like to clear some points: * Why is the "Connectivity Management GE" different in the Backend.graphml and in the Gateway.graphml? * What is the connection logic of the "Connectivity Management GE" components in the Backend.graphml? What is the "Connectivity Cache" store? * In the Backend.graphml the components of "Connectivity Control GE" are splitted in two sections: * First section in which only the "Access Control Policy" is shown * Second section in which the "Traffic Flow Management" and "Quality of Service Control" are in a dashed rectagular line. Why this split? Does the dashed line indicate that the components are optional? Thanks in advance for your help. We appreciate your work and we would like to contribute to it. Best regards, Sabrina Guerra __________________________________ Telecom Italia S.p.a. Strategia e Innovazione, Research & Trends Telefono +39 011 228 8359 Cellulare +39 331 600 1349 ________________________________ Da: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) Inviato: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:32 AM A: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-iot] Detailed Architecture FMC Diagrams Dear all, I just uploaded the early versions of the diagrams into the project svn in yED format. Backend: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Backend.graphml Gateway: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/Gateway.graphml I updated the yED stencil available on the wiki: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/documents/FMC.graphml Best, D?nes 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. Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 677 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From rheras at tid.es Fri Jan 13 12:37:32 2012 From: rheras at tid.es (Ricardo de las Heras) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:37:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu Fri Jan 13 16:39:59 2012 From: Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu (Tobias Jacobs) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:39:59 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> Message-ID: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B978A8@PALLENE.office.hd> Dear Ricardo, Thanks a lot for your explanations. At this point let me try to summarize what I believe is the main conceptual difference between your architecture proposal and the approach of IoT-A/SENSEI. Please correct me if I am wrong. If you agree with my analysis, then we have a common basis for further discussion :). In one sentence: Your approach is mainly push-based, while the IoT-A/SENSEI approach is mainly pull-based. A bit more detailed: - In you approach, the devices are sending updates, it is then checked which Virtual Thing attributes are affected by the update, and the resulting updates are published in the pub/sub broker. Resolution here means determining the Virtual Thing attributes that are associated with the specific resource. - In the IoT/SENSEI approach, requests on the Thing level are coming from the applications. Applications first use resolution to find out the resources associated to the requested Thing attributes (note that resolution here works in the reverse direction) and then they address the corresponding resources. This process of first performing resolution and then getting the data from the corresponding resources can be automatized [which is done by the Thing-level interface in Task 5.4. in our view] Best regards Tobias 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: Freitag, 13. Januar 2012 12:38 To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); Martin Bauer; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Martin, Tobias, Denes, @ll, first thank you for you feedback, now I answer to all of you in-line, joining all your comments in this mail: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: Hi all, Other questions emerge from Ricardo's slide: - The slide description says that the Configuration Repository contains "What are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves". However, the Inference Engine contains Association Rules. What are the difference between these two? Yes, Conf.Repository contains explicit relations (ex: these 2 sensors within the room A), however the Inference engine contains the Rules for generating new associations not explicitly defined yet, as for example 'if this sensor S1 is in room A, and room and is on the 1st floor, the inference defines a new association between S1 and the 1st floor, based on rules. - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? I think the previous example answer your question, those rules define the condition for create new associations, either static o dynamic. - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? I'm not going to define concepts out of the scope of T5.2, but from my point of view applications are subscribed to events through a set of rules, it would be managed by Data Handling. - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? The block named portal supplies a front-end in order to manage the associations rules, things-resources config. management, etc., we need in some way to provide this interface to the user administrator. - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? At this time I don't know what other type of elements could use the southbound interface as well for registering themselves. Virtual things maybe can be managed using a CEP for example, defining the way you combine two real sensors for creating a new one named 'virtual'. - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? Please don't imagine strange ideas, this component manages the catalog of Things, Resources and their associations (including properties, capabilities, etc) as it is explained in the text window associated to the 2nd slide. In the T5.2 high level architecture are called Things manager and Resource Directory. - The actuation part is definitely missing from the sketch. It is important to cater for that need. Either the Configuration Management or the Inference Engien should contain some kind of execution component that resolves the tasking requests toward devices or gateways. You are right, the data flows should consider that specific commands could be send to actuators, having in some way an engine defining the set of rules to fulfill in order to trigger a command to an actuator. But it could be managed in many ways. It is out of the scope of T5.2 and should be discussed within T5.3 I think. This is a first batch of questions. I hope they do make sense. Best, D?nes From: ext Martin Bauer [mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be "Actuation IoT Resources" and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Yes it was simply left out, this topic would need an extra discussion and analysis, I think it is not the main priority at this time, but is important to include now all the points we have to take into account, OK. Best regards, Martin From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I'm sharing Martin's concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? No :), I didn't want to take over of components out of the T5.2 scope, simply Data Handling, P/S/N Broker etc. are showed there for a better understanding of the slides and to put in context the different interfaces and interactions with the rest of the task within WP5. - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. I'm not sure why you assume that, for me is only a global reference architecture for the IoT world, this world would include IoT-A and Sensei as well, why not. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? My clarification for this question Martin is that the last slide shows GE blocks that clearly represent significant parts coming from other tasks and even wps (as wp6), like Publish Subscribe broker and the Observation Handler. Even the events repository could represent the interaction with the massive data storage GE coming from WP6 if needed, it would depend on the system requirements Those enablers are out of the scope of T5.2 but will fully support the Resource Management needs. - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. As you say, some of these operations are not supported in OMA NGSI-9 so we will have to define an API which would also be exported by the "Things/Resources Configuration Management" component. So, my point of view is that those extensions would fit in the OMA-NGSI extension, indeed we can provide later those extension to OMA suggesting their inclusion in the standard. Anyway a question to analyze is whether we should go for extending NGSI-9 and fast-track results of such extension to OMA. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. You say decoupling between Application and IoT resources, OK, I agree this point of view as well, this decoupling is in deed one of the principles followed in our IDAS architecture design. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. The upper applications layer directly interacts with Things and Resources, so I don't understand why you conceive that the Iot resources are not visible to applications. Sorry if this concept is not clear enough in the picture, but the idea is that applications directly interact with both, Things Manager and Resource Management (through the named Basic Repository Management). We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Every Thing are described based on values that properties linked to Things take over time (resources' capabilities), so you wouldn't need necessarily direct interaction with its associated resources . Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. OK, right, and do you see in those slides any constraint for that? Discovery processes can be based also on Things with this model of architecture. Best regards, Martin and Tobias -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 16 08:59:31 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:59:31 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] updates on the GA agenda Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E91093@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Dear IoT people from Ericsson, ATOS, Thales, Usurrey, SAP, Please provide the following info ASAP: 1. Mark in each slot from our agenda proposal (Monday - Wednesday) in which of the meetings will you attend and with how many persons 2. Whether you are interested to participate in cross sections with Tools and Security Thursday morning, and with how many persons, in case these cross sections will materialize. Ricardo please provide info whether you are staying on Thursday as well. Dear Sabrina and Gian Piero, please let me know whether you participate on the plenary. Thanks & Br, Lorant _____________________________________________ From: Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:53 PM To: 'fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: updates on the GA agenda Dear All, Attached an updated agenda on the IoT side. << File: v02_FIWare-GM-Madrid-IoT Agenda.xlsx >> Concerning the rest of week after Wednesday please be informed that: 1. WP11/ATOS wants a whole day meeting on Friday about dissemination (Ern? wasn't it so that now NEC leads this WP??), see attached e-mail << Message: [Fiware] FW: Meeting organization in Madrid >> 2. There was a proposal from someone to have 2 joint sessions, one with Tools and the second with Security, on Thursday morning, but none of these were confirmed yet. I would like to ask 3 things from each of the partners: 1. To mark in each slot from our agenda proposal (Monday - Wednesday) in which of the meetings will the partner attend and with how many persons 2. Whether you are interested to participate in cross sections with Tools and Security Thursday morning, and with how many persons, in case these cross sections will materialize. Please provide the input as soon as possible. Would be nice if I could provide this info at 3 o'clock to the coordinator. Thanks & Br, Lorant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Mon Jan 16 09:14:50 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:14:50 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202E910CA@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> When: 2012. janu?r 18. 10:00-11:30 (GMT+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague. Where: telco/webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Please mind that the PIN code changed because of internal policy. New one is valid for every instance for the next 6 months. Dear All, Let's resume our weekly meeting starting from next week in the usual day/time, which is Wednesday, 10:00 AM (CET) to 11:30. Either WPL or WPA will be present to host the meeting. In case we find good reason to skip the meeting, then we will skip it, but I propose not to deviate from this slot. Thanks & Br, Lorant Topic: IOT WP weekly Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, 10 August 2011 to Wednesday, 26 March 2014 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 709 472 921 Meeting Password: FI-WARE ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&RT=MTgjMjM%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: FI-WARE 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&ORT=MTgjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- NSN Voice Conference information Conference ID: 58465 New PIN: 1628 Making a conference call * from the office: 8071870 (in Finland and Germany) * from out of office: +358 7180 71870 (in Finland) and +49 89 5159 43800 (in Germany) All out-of-office conference access numbers are listed in page https://inside.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/MyServices/IT/Infrastructure_Services/RealTimeCommunication/VoiceService/NSNVoiceConference/MakingaCall/LocalAccessNumbers/Pages/Outofofficenumbers.aspx. Please check and prioritize them. If there is no access number for your country then please use access numbers of the area where to the calling costs are lowest. ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: lorant.farkas at nsn.com Argentina - Buenos Aires +54 11 5983 9400 (PRIMARY) or +54 11 4814 9373 Argentina - Cordoba +54 35 1568 2208 Australia - Sydney +61 28 014 7189 (PRIMARY) or +61 29 429 9664 Australia - Melbourne +61 38 739 4333 Austria +43 72 088 0245 Bahrain +97 31 619 9028 Belgium - Generic +32 1448 0116 Belgium - Diegem-Machelen +32 2710 3300 Brazil - Belo Horizonte +55 31 3956 0546 Brazil - Brazil +55 61 3717 2043 Brazil - Curitiba +55 41 3906 0826 Brazil - Manaus +55 92 3652 7576 Brazil - Rio De Janeiro +55 21 3958 0804 (PRIMARY) or +55 21 3431 1999 Brazil - Salvador +55 71 3717 5351 Brazil - Sao Paolo +55 11 5508 0630 Bulgaria +359 2491 7085 Canada - Ajax +1 90 5619 4346 Canada - Burnaby +1 60 4456 5897 Canada - Hamilton +1 905 581 0212 Canada - Mississauga +1 289 360 3950 Canada - Montreal +1 51 4789 9125 Canada - Ottawa +1 61 3800 0568 Chile - Santiago +56 2350 6485 China - Mainland +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Beijing +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Chengdu +86 28 8689 0188 ext 1870 China - Dongguan +86 0769 2240 2844 ext 1870 China - Guangzhou +86 20 8755 6190 ext 1870 China - Hangzhou +86 571 8722 0877 ext 1870 China - Hong Kong +852 259 70220 ext 1870 China - Kunming +86 871 362 2880 ext 1870 China - Shanghai +86 21 6101 1870 ext 1870 China - ShenZhen +86 755 8613 3688 ext 1870 China - Suzhou +86 512 6761 6166 ext 1870 China - Zhengzhou +86 371 6566 9768 ext 1870 Colombia +57 1640 7979 ext 444 Croatia +38 51 777 6122 Czech Republic +42 02 460 19300 Denmark +45 699 18450 (PRIMARY) or +45 3329 2882 Egypt +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Estonia +37 266 67297 Finland +358 7180 71870 France +33 17 061 7813 (PRIMARY) or +33 14 915 1553 Germany +49 89 5159 43800 Greece +30 21 1176 8207 (PRIMARY) or +30 21 1120 3677 Hungary - Budapest +36 17 009 888 Hungary - Kom?rom +36 20 884 2499 India 000 800 100 7777 Indonesia - Jakarta (Menara Mulia/Plaza Kuningan +62 21 2557 9102 Indonesia - Bandung +62 22 8427 5992 Indonesia - Medan +62 61 3001 2702 Indonesia - Semarang +62 24 3300 0702 Ireland +353 1526 2862 Israel +97 29 775 1700 Italy - Milan +39 024 004 2007 Italy - Rome +39 069 481 6656 Japan +81 3 4578 0230 (PRIMARY) or +81 3 5474 7979 Kuwait +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Latvia +37 16 765 2510 Lithuania +37 0 5205 8994 Luxembourg +352 2088 0106 Malaysia +60 323 029 009 Mexico - Mexico City +52 55 3686 9759 (PRIMARY) or +52 55 5261 7245 Mexico - Reynosa +52 89 9909 1555 Netherlands +31 79 346 5225 New Zealand +64 9306 6933 Norway - Oslo +47 21 548 223 Oman +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Pakistan +92 512 092 444 Panama +507 832 7981 Peru +51 1708 5370 (PRIMARY) or +51 1215 7650 Philippines +63 2754 1700 Poland - Warsaw +48 22 398 8116 Poland - Wroclaw +48 71 718 1215 Portugal +351 21 044 4698 Qatar +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Romania +40 36 440 3799 Russia +74 95 725 2706 Saudi Arabia +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Singapore +65 3103 1065 (PRIMARY) or +65 6723 2582 Slovakia +42 12 3300 6924 Slovenia +38 61 600 2713 South Africa - Johannesburg +27 1 0500 2221 South Africa - Pretoria +27 1 2004 2334 South Korea - Masan +82 5 5290 7690 South Korea - Seoul +82 2 2186 5088 Spain +349 1187 5929 Sweden +46 85 250 0862 (PRIMARY), +46 84 100 9299 Switzerland +41 44 279 7943 Taiwan +88 62 8175 9298 Thailand +66 2762 6750 Turkey +90 216 570 2345 Ukraine +38 044 520 2272 UK +44 12 5275 8334 UK - Camberley +44 12 5286 5849 UK - Church Crookham +44 12 5261 1100 UK - Huntingdon +44 14 8087 8220 (PRIMARY), +44 14 8044 4206 UK - London +44 20 3318 1924 United Arab Emirates +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) USA - Alpharetta +1 770 871 3050 USA - Arizona +1 480 588 3748 USA - Atlanta +1 404 236 4550 USA - Atlanta Notheast +1 678 317 3165 USA - Austin/Round Rock +1 512 600 2027 USA - Belleville +1 973 547 7982 USA - Boca Raton +1 561 910 2843 USA - Boston +1 617 963 8320 (PRIMARY) or +1 781 993 4850 USA - Burlington +1 781 993 4850 USA - Calabasas +1 818 914 0215 USA - Canoga Park +1 818 914 0215 USA - Cary +1 919 655 1388 USA - Chelmsford/Littleton +1 978 679 0233 USA - Chicago +1 773 303 4710 USA - Dallas +1 214 269 7626 USA - Dallas/Fort Worth +1 214 270 0352 USA - Greenville, NC +1 252 329 1677 USA - Herndon +1 703 483 4485 USA - Johnson City +1 423 952 1545 USA - Kirkland +1 425 242 3113 USA - Miami +1 786 388 4150 or +1 786 329 7177 USA - Naperville +1 630 596 2203 USA - New Brunswick +1 732 579 6483 USA - New Century, KS +1 913 254 5900 USA - New York White Plains +1 914 368 0650 USA - New York Peekskill, White Plains +1 914 293 1885 USA - Palo Alto +1 650 644 1349 USA - Redmond +1 425 242 3113 USA - San Diego +1 858 769 5309 or +1 619 330 9699 USA - Sunnyvale +1 408 419 1750 USA - Washington D.C +1 202 552 4781 Vietnam +84 4 3724 6110 Yemen +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meeting.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 10310 bytes Desc: not available URL: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Mon Jan 16 10:12:31 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:12:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056545AE@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Hi All, I provide my feedback inline (I removed those parts that needs no further comment from my part): - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? I think the previous example answer your question, those rules define the condition for create new associations, either static o dynamic. Ok. So if I understand correctly, the Inference Engine continuously monitors the configuration repository, and when change happens it creates new rules? What about the Things/Resources Configuration management sends notifications when change occur, and then the Inference Engine evaluates if new rules need to be created? - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? I'm not going to define concepts out of the scope of T5.2, but from my point of view applications are subscribed to events through a set of rules, it would be managed by Data Handling. Ok, fair enough. - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? The block named portal supplies a front-end in order to manage the associations rules, things-resources config. management, etc., we need in some way to provide this interface to the user administrator. I have to confirm if we have to provide only an API or can work on a Portal as well. - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? At this time I don't know what other type of elements could use the southbound interface as well for registering themselves. Virtual things maybe can be managed using a CEP for example, defining the way you combine two real sensors for creating a new one named 'virtual'. Ok, lets put this to TODO. I think NEC needs derived resources as well, i.e. average temperature calculated (Tobias, can you confirm?). - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? Please don't imagine strange ideas, this component manages the catalog of Things, Resources and their associations (including properties, capabilities, etc) as it is explained in the text window associated to the 2nd slide. In the T5.2 high level architecture are called Things manager and Resource Directory. I just want to understand it. The question came from the perspective the Resource Directory (within Services and Resources Interaction) already contains a list of the resources / devices. The wiki says: "A repository storing all the registered Entites and Resources is needed as basic module for developing the rest of the services." See: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Feature.IoT.ServicesAndResources.ResourcesDirectory.ResourceDirectory This means to me that we already have a list of resources and devices. I found it redundant to have the same list stored in the configuration management. I obviously don't understand this, can you clear the picture for me? You are right, the data flows should consider that specific commands could be send to actuators, having in some way an engine defining the set of rules to fulfill in order to trigger a command to an actuator. But it could be managed in many ways. It is out of the scope of T5.2 and should be discussed within T5.3 I think. It is fair to say that actuation may be part of Process Automation, but still, resource management has to provide support for it. I think this part will go to the GA. Best D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it Mon Jan 16 11:07:03 2012 From: sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it (Guerra Sabrina) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:07:03 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] R: Feedback IoT Communication Architecture In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056545AE@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056545AE@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A5955954E1@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Hi All, we would like to discuss these generic aspects of the platform with you and to collect the your feedback about the following observations: we have seen that in the architecture on the Wiki there are asymmetries between the Backend and the Gateway diagram, in the case of IoT Communication. In the ETSI M2M Specifications there is a similar approach as the functionalities are distributed either to the platform level or to the gateway/device level but in the ETSI M2M the functionalities are symmetries. We would know if this difference between the backend/platform and the gateway architecture is shared and which are the reasons of this choice. For example the "Service Control" GE is only identified in the backend diagram and not in the gateway diagram. An other example: the "Access Rights Control" component is only identified in the gateway diagram and not in the backend diagram. Best regards, Sabrina Sabrina Guerra __________________________________ Telecom Italia S.p.a. Strategia e Innovazione, Research & Trends Telefono +39 011 228 8359 Cellulare +39 331 600 1349 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: -------------- 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: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Mon Jan 16 11:41:58 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:41:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback IoT Communication Architecture In-Reply-To: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A5955954E1@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056545AE@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A5955954E1@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056546F6@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Hi All, My answers to the two topics you mentioned: 1. The Access Rights Control component is a bit controversial component. In the backend its functionalities is clear. However, in the Gateway, you already have a Access Policy Control within Data Access Policy GE. It would be good if we could clear what this one is responsible for, and what the one in the IoT Communication is responsible for. 2. I assumed that the Gateways are dealing with non-ETSI compliant devices. Thus, the service control GE as a central component does not have a sense. The reasons include that devices may connect in completely different manner, so QoS or Traffic Management may not be necessary. Do you think we need it there? Please take the initiative and change it as you prefer it. Best, D?nes From: ext Guerra Sabrina [mailto:sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 11:07 AM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); 'fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu' Cc: Fici Gian Piero Subject: R: [Fiware-iot] Feedback IoT Communication Architecture Hi All, we would like to discuss these generic aspects of the platform with you and to collect the your feedback about the following observations: we have seen that in the architecture on the Wiki there are asymmetries between the Backend and the Gateway diagram, in the case of IoT Communication. In the ETSI M2M Specifications there is a similar approach as the functionalities are distributed either to the platform level or to the gateway/device level but in the ETSI M2M the functionalities are symmetries. We would know if this difference between the backend/platform and the gateway architecture is shared and which are the reasons of this choice. For example the "Service Control" GE is only identified in the backend diagram and not in the gateway diagram. An other example: the "Access Rights Control" component is only identified in the gateway diagram and not in the backend diagram. Best regards, Sabrina Sabrina Guerra __________________________________ Telecom Italia S.p.a. Strategia e Innovazione, Research & Trends Telefono +39 011 228 8359 Cellulare +39 331 600 1349 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. Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 677 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From gianpiero.fici at telecomitalia.it Mon Jan 16 15:23:38 2012 From: gianpiero.fici at telecomitalia.it (Fici Gian Piero) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:23:38 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback about the Backend and Gateway Architecture Message-ID: Hi D?nes and All, I would like to ask the opinion of all the partners about this general issue of the Backend and Gateway architecture: since we are going to consider the gateway architecture as well, besides the backend (platform) architecture, is it better to maintain a symmetry between components at backend and at gateway level? Or can they be different? (I am referring to D?nes' point 2 in his attached e-mail). The reason behind this general question is the one already pointed out by Sabrina in her previous e-mail: the ETSI M2M architecture is very similar to what we are approaching with our work in this project. The reason of the ETSI M2M architecture is that the Device, Gateway and Network elements are functionally similar (of course they are different in relation to performances and reachability), all of them can host resources that can be accessed by applications both at local and network level (this is just an hint, I can be more precise in the ETSI M2M conference calls and workshop in the GA). We could, of course, adopt just the ETSI M2M reference points and not the architecture, but the ETSI M2M architecture has some good points too that maybe we can consider in our discussion since we moved from a simple platform architecture to a more complex architecture dealing with backend and gateway functionalities (by the way, we should consider also IoT compliant Devices besides IoT Gateways :)). What is your opinion? I can refine or change the current backend and platform FMC description only when this general issue has been addressed by all the partners involved, otherwise I can modify the architecture in a way that it is not shared by the others (these are the pros and cons of an un-moderated wiki :)) Ciao, Gian Piero Da: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Inviato: luned? 16 gennaio 2012 11:42 A: Guerra Sabrina; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Fici Gian Piero Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback IoT Communication Architecture Hi All, My answers to the two topics you mentioned: 1. The Access Rights Control component is a bit controversial component. In the backend its functionalities is clear. However, in the Gateway, you already have a Access Policy Control within Data Access Policy GE. It would be good if we could clear what this one is responsible for, and what the one in the IoT Communication is responsible for. 2. I assumed that the Gateways are dealing with non-ETSI compliant devices. Thus, the service control GE as a central component does not have a sense. The reasons include that devices may connect in completely different manner, so QoS or Traffic Management may not be necessary. Do you think we need it there? Please take the initiative and change it as you prefer it. Best, D?nes From: ext Guerra Sabrina [mailto:sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 11:07 AM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); 'fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu' Cc: Fici Gian Piero Subject: R: [Fiware-iot] Feedback IoT Communication Architecture Hi All, we would like to discuss these generic aspects of the platform with you and to collect the your feedback about the following observations: we have seen that in the architecture on the Wiki there are asymmetries between the Backend and the Gateway diagram, in the case of IoT Communication. In the ETSI M2M Specifications there is a similar approach as the functionalities are distributed either to the platform level or to the gateway/device level but in the ETSI M2M the functionalities are symmetries. We would know if this difference between the backend/platform and the gateway architecture is shared and which are the reasons of this choice. For example the "Service Control" GE is only identified in the backend diagram and not in the gateway diagram. An other example: the "Access Rights Control" component is only identified in the gateway diagram and not in the backend diagram. Best regards, Sabrina Sabrina Guerra __________________________________ Telecom Italia S.p.a. Strategia e Innovazione, Research & Trends Telefono +39 011 228 8359 Cellulare +39 331 600 1349 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:image001.gif at 01CCD45B.F28A3CC0]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 677 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- 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: From rheras at tid.es Tue Jan 17 16:19:01 2012 From: rheras at tid.es (Ricardo de las Heras) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:19:01 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B978A8@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B978A8@PALLENE.office.hd> Message-ID: <4F159165.4080809@tid.es> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu Tue Jan 17 16:41:24 2012 From: Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu (Tobias Jacobs) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:41:24 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <4F159165.4080809@tid.es> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B978A8@PALLENE.office.hd> <4F159165.4080809@tid.es> Message-ID: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B97CBF@PALLENE.office.hd> Hi Ricardo, Thanks a lot for your clear answer. In order to continue the discussion (and reach a conclusion this month), I created an architecture document explaining our view in more details. It is more or less a refinement of the High-Level Description document regarding T 5.2. Please find some explaining remarks below. Best regards Tobias --------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation attached architecture document: Components inside blue boxes are strongly coupled and should be inside the same asset. (I hope that notation does not violate any FMC conventions, but I have not checked) Discovery and Resolution of Things GE -------------------------------------------------- Here a new component appears that has not been present in the High-Level Description document: The "Things and Resources Association Repository" is a storage for associations between Attributes of Things and IoT Resources that can deliver the values of these things. The functionality of the other three components is like in the Highlevel Description: The thing manager is responsible for inserting/updating/deleting static associations, The Things & IoT Service Monitoring dynamically maintains associations in case of e.g. moving objects, and the Things Resolution component is responsible for finding the resources associated to given Thing Attributes. Services and Resources GE: ----------------------------------- Here the rectangles and circles correspond exactly to the components in the High Level Description. The Directory handler is for inserting, updating and deleting resources in the resource directory, and the Resource & Service Discovery will find resources based on a higher-level description, accessing the resource directory. Resources can also be published in the IoT Catalog & Location Rectangle, which is important in a distributed system. Exposure GE ----------------- The Thing-Level API has built-in the workflow for processing thing-level requests: When requests arrive, the Thing-level API queries the Things Resolution component to obtain the resources which can provide the values of the Thing Attributes of interest. It then performs the necessary steps for obtaining the data from these resources ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ricardo de las Heras [mailto:rheras at tid.es] Sent: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 16:19 To: Tobias Jacobs Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Dear Tobias, I'm not completely sure if this main conceptual difference that you have perfectly explained below is the only one, but is sure we are following the first approach in the proposed architecture. Anyway we can continue this discussion next week in Madrid, thanks Tobias for helping me to clarify the architecture proposal, br, Ricardo. Tobias Jacobs wrote: Dear Ricardo, Thanks a lot for your explanations. At this point let me try to summarize what I believe is the main conceptual difference between your architecture proposal and the approach of IoT-A/SENSEI. Please correct me if I am wrong. If you agree with my analysis, then we have a common basis for further discussion :). In one sentence: Your approach is mainly push-based, while the IoT-A/SENSEI approach is mainly pull-based. A bit more detailed: - In you approach, the devices are sending updates, it is then checked which Virtual Thing attributes are affected by the update, and the resulting updates are published in the pub/sub broker. Resolution here means determining the Virtual Thing attributes that are associated with the specific resource. - In the IoT/SENSEI approach, requests on the Thing level are coming from the applications. Applications first use resolution to find out the resources associated to the requested Thing attributes (note that resolution here works in the reverse direction) and then they address the corresponding resources. This process of first performing resolution and then getting the data from the corresponding resources can be automatized [which is done by the Thing-level interface in Task 5.4. in our view] Best regards Tobias 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: Freitag, 13. Januar 2012 12:38 To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); Martin Bauer; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Martin, Tobias, Denes, @ll, first thank you for you feedback, now I answer to all of you in-line, joining all your comments in this mail: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: Hi all, Other questions emerge from Ricardo's slide: - The slide description says that the Configuration Repository contains "What are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves". However, the Inference Engine contains Association Rules. What are the difference between these two? Yes, Conf.Repository contains explicit relations (ex: these 2 sensors within the room A), however the Inference engine contains the Rules for generating new associations not explicitly defined yet, as for example 'if this sensor S1 is in room A, and room and is on the 1st floor, the inference defines a new association between S1 and the 1st floor, based on rules. - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? I think the previous example answer your question, those rules define the condition for create new associations, either static o dynamic. - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? I'm not going to define concepts out of the scope of T5.2, but from my point of view applications are subscribed to events through a set of rules, it would be managed by Data Handling. - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? The block named portal supplies a front-end in order to manage the associations rules, things-resources config. management, etc., we need in some way to provide this interface to the user administrator. - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? At this time I don't know what other type of elements could use the southbound interface as well for registering themselves. Virtual things maybe can be managed using a CEP for example, defining the way you combine two real sensors for creating a new one named 'virtual'. - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? Please don't imagine strange ideas, this component manages the catalog of Things, Resources and their associations (including properties, capabilities, etc) as it is explained in the text window associated to the 2nd slide. In the T5.2 high level architecture are called Things manager and Resource Directory. - The actuation part is definitely missing from the sketch. It is important to cater for that need. Either the Configuration Management or the Inference Engien should contain some kind of execution component that resolves the tasking requests toward devices or gateways. You are right, the data flows should consider that specific commands could be send to actuators, having in some way an engine defining the set of rules to fulfill in order to trigger a command to an actuator. But it could be managed in many ways. It is out of the scope of T5.2 and should be discussed within T5.3 I think. This is a first batch of questions. I hope they do make sense. Best, D?nes From: ext Martin Bauer [mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be "Actuation IoT Resources" and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Yes it was simply left out, this topic would need an extra discussion and analysis, I think it is not the main priority at this time, but is important to include now all the points we have to take into account, OK. Best regards, Martin From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I'm sharing Martin's concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? No :), I didn't want to take over of components out of the T5.2 scope, simply Data Handling, P/S/N Broker etc. are showed there for a better understanding of the slides and to put in context the different interfaces and interactions with the rest of the task within WP5. - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. I'm not sure why you assume that, for me is only a global reference architecture for the IoT world, this world would include IoT-A and Sensei as well, why not. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? My clarification for this question Martin is that the last slide shows GE blocks that clearly represent significant parts coming from other tasks and even wps (as wp6), like Publish Subscribe broker and the Observation Handler. Even the events repository could represent the interaction with the massive data storage GE coming from WP6 if needed, it would depend on the system requirements Those enablers are out of the scope of T5.2 but will fully support the Resource Management needs. - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. As you say, some of these operations are not supported in OMA NGSI-9 so we will have to define an API which would also be exported by the "Things/Resources Configuration Management" component. So, my point of view is that those extensions would fit in the OMA-NGSI extension, indeed we can provide later those extension to OMA suggesting their inclusion in the standard. Anyway a question to analyze is whether we should go for extending NGSI-9 and fast-track results of such extension to OMA. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. You say decoupling between Application and IoT resources, OK, I agree this point of view as well, this decoupling is in deed one of the principles followed in our IDAS architecture design. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. The upper applications layer directly interacts with Things and Resources, so I don't understand why you conceive that the Iot resources are not visible to applications. Sorry if this concept is not clear enough in the picture, but the idea is that applications directly interact with both, Things Manager and Resource Management (through the named Basic Repository Management). We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Every Thing are described based on values that properties linked to Things take over time (resources' capabilities), so you wouldn't need necessarily direct interaction with its associated resources . Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. OK, right, and do you see in those slides any constraint for that? Discovery processes can be based also on Things with this model of architecture. Best regards, Martin and Tobias -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Task_5.2_architecture_proposal_iota-sensei.graphml Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38707 bytes Desc: Task_5.2_architecture_proposal_iota-sensei.graphml URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Task_5.2_architecture_proposal_iota-sensei.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 64381 bytes Desc: Task_5.2_architecture_proposal_iota-sensei.jpg URL: From Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu Tue Jan 17 17:05:07 2012 From: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu (Martin Bauer) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:05:07 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] WP5 architecture considerations Message-ID: Dear all, Regarding the IoT architecture presented recently by TID, I would like to add some more general considerations for the discussion. I would characterize the proposal as - logically centralized, i.e. all information flows through the system as events, which are stored in the events repository - push-based, i.e., it is assumed that events are automatically published and pushed through the system, at least towards the central repository from which they may be further distributed - completely de-coupled, i.e., applications can subscribe or query the system, but the answer depends on what is provided by the repositories / pub-/sub-broker - a request cannot directly result in a call to the gateway or device to trigger a measurement or an actuation, the complete decoupling prevents that In the following I discuss a number of issues I see with this proposal. IoT Ecosystem The logically centralized approach could be suitable for a single domain / single provider approach. For this information all information can be handled centrally and the operator can be considered trusted. It is difficult to see how this approach would work in a multi-domain, multi-operator scenario with potentially different roles forming an IoT ecosystem. In such an ecosystem there could be different providers of information, who may want to be found, but still completely control the access to their information, which may be their asset, i.e., they may want to check who accesses what information and also charge for that. Having to automatically publish information into the system and having to completely trust a platform operator may not be in their interest. Also, storing history of past information etc. could in principle be handled by a separate role, whereas in the presented approach there does not seem to be room for such a role. The SENSEI architecture has a strong focus on supporting an IoT ecosystem with multiple roles. Noisy system and missing adaptation to application requirements Due to the decoupling, all information has to be communicated towards the core of the platform, whether anybody is interested or not. This creates a lot of "noise". The goal of the SENSEI platform was to only communicate (or even capture) information when there was some interest for this information. Depending on whether you can dimension your system as needed or not, you may have to restrict, e.g., the frequency of publication, the size of data to publish etc. For example, it may be okay if a certain value is published every couple of minutes in normal circumstances, but in a special situation, an application may want the value every few milliseconds. With a complete decoupling, this either cannot be realized or you have to always publish every few milliseconds (which may, e.g., also deplete the batteries of a sensing device). The SENSEI system could support such requests, but of course it could still restrict application access, i.e., the provider may not want to allow an update every few milliseconds, but then this is a policy and not a limitation of the system. Actuation and expensive operations For actuation or some expensive operations it is necessary that a request directly triggers an operation on an IoT device. An expensive operation may be a Bluetooth scan, which may take 25s and is very expensive in terms of battery, so it should only be done as a result of a request (with the system potentially limiting the frequency of request), but it should not happen automatically. For actuation operations a command may have to be sent (e.g. based on a change of an attribute of a Thing). Currently there does not seem to be a way to support this as the system is completely decoupled. I hope these issues can be discussed either tomorrow during the phone conference or at the face-to-face meeting in Madrid. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Jan 18 08:28:49 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:28:49 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FI-Ware M6 review report Message-ID: Dear all, Please find here the first review report. As Juanjo, I did not have time this morning to read it before to sent it to you, so I will send my comments later on. BR Thierry De : fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 18 janvier 2012 08:12 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Letter informing the consortium of review results FI-WARE Ares(2012)43939 Hi, Please forward to your teams. I haven't checked the contents, just forwarding it to you. Regards, ------------- Juanjo Hierro Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Letter informing the consortium of review results FI-WARE Ares(2012)43939 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:01:44 +0100 From: Bertine.BOS at ec.europa.eu To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu , Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu , msli at icfocus.co.uk , dgr at whitestein.com , rdifrancesco at ymail.com , bel.piet1 at gmail.com , Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu , Rainer.Zimmermann at ec.europa.eu , Ioannis.MALEKOS at ec.europa.eu , Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu , JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Dear Mr. Jimenez Delgado, Please find attached the letter to the consortium as well as the review report of the review meeting of the project FI-WARE which took place in Brussels on 22 November 2011. Please inform the other members of the consortium of the review outcome. <> <> Best regards on behalf of Arian Zwegers, Bertine Bos European Commission - DG INFSO/D3 Software & Service Architectures and Infrastructures BU25 3/142, B-1049 Brussels Tel: 32-02-2967335 Fax: 32-02-2967018 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cover FI-WARE review 1 report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36199 bytes Desc: Cover FI-WARE review 1 report.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE Review 1 Report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1428625 bytes Desc: FI-WARE Review 1 Report.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT3098348.txt URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Wed Jan 18 08:58:14 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:58:14 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A202F3D36D@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> When: 2012. janu?r 18. 10:00-11:30 (GMT+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague. Where: telco/webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Dear All, Agenda proposal for today: 1. Results of the review - Thierry will give a short overview 2. ETSI M2M task force - D?nes will give a short overview of the first meeting and potential next steps 3. Architecture a. Status update b. The symmentric backend/gateway issue c. Discussions on the resource management task Thanks & Br, Lorant Please mind that the PIN code changed because of internal policy. New one is valid for every instance for the next 6 months. Dear All, Let's resume our weekly meeting starting from next week in the usual day/time, which is Wednesday, 10:00 AM (CET) to 11:30. Either WPL or WPA will be present to host the meeting. In case we find good reason to skip the meeting, then we will skip it, but I propose not to deviate from this slot. Thanks & Br, Lorant Topic: IOT WP weekly Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, 10 August 2011 to Wednesday, 26 March 2014 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 709 472 921 Meeting Password: FI-WARE ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&RT=MTgjMjM%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: FI-WARE 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&ORT=MTgjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- NSN Voice Conference information Conference ID: 58465 New PIN: 1628 Making a conference call * from the office: 8071870 (in Finland and Germany) * from out of office: +358 7180 71870 (in Finland) and +49 89 5159 43800 (in Germany) All out-of-office conference access numbers are listed in page https://inside.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/MyServices/IT/Infrastructure_Services/RealTimeCommunication/VoiceService/NSNVoiceConference/MakingaCall/LocalAccessNumbers/Pages/Outofofficenumbers.aspx. Please check and prioritize them. If there is no access number for your country then please use access numbers of the area where to the calling costs are lowest. ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: lorant.farkas at nsn.com Argentina - Buenos Aires +54 11 5983 9400 (PRIMARY) or +54 11 4814 9373 Argentina - Cordoba +54 35 1568 2208 Australia - Sydney +61 28 014 7189 (PRIMARY) or +61 29 429 9664 Australia - Melbourne +61 38 739 4333 Austria +43 72 088 0245 Bahrain +97 31 619 9028 Belgium - Generic +32 1448 0116 Belgium - Diegem-Machelen +32 2710 3300 Brazil - Belo Horizonte +55 31 3956 0546 Brazil - Brazil +55 61 3717 2043 Brazil - Curitiba +55 41 3906 0826 Brazil - Manaus +55 92 3652 7576 Brazil - Rio De Janeiro +55 21 3958 0804 (PRIMARY) or +55 21 3431 1999 Brazil - Salvador +55 71 3717 5351 Brazil - Sao Paolo +55 11 5508 0630 Bulgaria +359 2491 7085 Canada - Ajax +1 90 5619 4346 Canada - Burnaby +1 60 4456 5897 Canada - Hamilton +1 905 581 0212 Canada - Mississauga +1 289 360 3950 Canada - Montreal +1 51 4789 9125 Canada - Ottawa +1 61 3800 0568 Chile - Santiago +56 2350 6485 China - Mainland +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Beijing +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Chengdu +86 28 8689 0188 ext 1870 China - Dongguan +86 0769 2240 2844 ext 1870 China - Guangzhou +86 20 8755 6190 ext 1870 China - Hangzhou +86 571 8722 0877 ext 1870 China - Hong Kong +852 259 70220 ext 1870 China - Kunming +86 871 362 2880 ext 1870 China - Shanghai +86 21 6101 1870 ext 1870 China - ShenZhen +86 755 8613 3688 ext 1870 China - Suzhou +86 512 6761 6166 ext 1870 China - Zhengzhou +86 371 6566 9768 ext 1870 Colombia +57 1640 7979 ext 444 Croatia +38 51 777 6122 Czech Republic +42 02 460 19300 Denmark +45 699 18450 (PRIMARY) or +45 3329 2882 Egypt +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Estonia +37 266 67297 Finland +358 7180 71870 France +33 17 061 7813 (PRIMARY) or +33 14 915 1553 Germany +49 89 5159 43800 Greece +30 21 1176 8207 (PRIMARY) or +30 21 1120 3677 Hungary - Budapest +36 17 009 888 Hungary - Kom?rom +36 20 884 2499 India 000 800 100 7777 Indonesia - Jakarta (Menara Mulia/Plaza Kuningan +62 21 2557 9102 Indonesia - Bandung +62 22 8427 5992 Indonesia - Medan +62 61 3001 2702 Indonesia - Semarang +62 24 3300 0702 Ireland +353 1526 2862 Israel +97 29 775 1700 Italy - Milan +39 024 004 2007 Italy - Rome +39 069 481 6656 Japan +81 3 4578 0230 (PRIMARY) or +81 3 5474 7979 Kuwait +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Latvia +37 16 765 2510 Lithuania +37 0 5205 8994 Luxembourg +352 2088 0106 Malaysia +60 323 029 009 Mexico - Mexico City +52 55 3686 9759 (PRIMARY) or +52 55 5261 7245 Mexico - Reynosa +52 89 9909 1555 Netherlands +31 79 346 5225 New Zealand +64 9306 6933 Norway - Oslo +47 21 548 223 Oman +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Pakistan +92 512 092 444 Panama +507 832 7981 Peru +51 1708 5370 (PRIMARY) or +51 1215 7650 Philippines +63 2754 1700 Poland - Warsaw +48 22 398 8116 Poland - Wroclaw +48 71 718 1215 Portugal +351 21 044 4698 Qatar +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Romania +40 36 440 3799 Russia +74 95 725 2706 Saudi Arabia +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Singapore +65 3103 1065 (PRIMARY) or +65 6723 2582 Slovakia +42 12 3300 6924 Slovenia +38 61 600 2713 South Africa - Johannesburg +27 1 0500 2221 South Africa - Pretoria +27 1 2004 2334 South Korea - Masan +82 5 5290 7690 South Korea - Seoul +82 2 2186 5088 Spain +349 1187 5929 Sweden +46 85 250 0862 (PRIMARY), +46 84 100 9299 Switzerland +41 44 279 7943 Taiwan +88 62 8175 9298 Thailand +66 2762 6750 Turkey +90 216 570 2345 Ukraine +38 044 520 2272 UK +44 12 5275 8334 UK - Camberley +44 12 5286 5849 UK - Church Crookham +44 12 5261 1100 UK - Huntingdon +44 14 8087 8220 (PRIMARY), +44 14 8044 4206 UK - London +44 20 3318 1924 United Arab Emirates +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) USA - Alpharetta +1 770 871 3050 USA - Arizona +1 480 588 3748 USA - Atlanta +1 404 236 4550 USA - Atlanta Notheast +1 678 317 3165 USA - Austin/Round Rock +1 512 600 2027 USA - Belleville +1 973 547 7982 USA - Boca Raton +1 561 910 2843 USA - Boston +1 617 963 8320 (PRIMARY) or +1 781 993 4850 USA - Burlington +1 781 993 4850 USA - Calabasas +1 818 914 0215 USA - Canoga Park +1 818 914 0215 USA - Cary +1 919 655 1388 USA - Chelmsford/Littleton +1 978 679 0233 USA - Chicago +1 773 303 4710 USA - Dallas +1 214 269 7626 USA - Dallas/Fort Worth +1 214 270 0352 USA - Greenville, NC +1 252 329 1677 USA - Herndon +1 703 483 4485 USA - Johnson City +1 423 952 1545 USA - Kirkland +1 425 242 3113 USA - Miami +1 786 388 4150 or +1 786 329 7177 USA - Naperville +1 630 596 2203 USA - New Brunswick +1 732 579 6483 USA - New Century, KS +1 913 254 5900 USA - New York White Plains +1 914 368 0650 USA - New York Peekskill, White Plains +1 914 293 1885 USA - Palo Alto +1 650 644 1349 USA - Redmond +1 425 242 3113 USA - San Diego +1 858 769 5309 or +1 619 330 9699 USA - Sunnyvale +1 408 419 1750 USA - Washington D.C +1 202 552 4781 Vietnam +84 4 3724 6110 Yemen +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meeting.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 10689 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu Wed Jan 18 09:19:59 2012 From: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu (Martin Bauer) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:19:59 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> Message-ID: Hi Ricardo, all, Some comments from my side on the discussion so far (I extracted them from Ricardo's e-mail that is attached below). - Actuation Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be "Actuation IoT Resources" and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding he IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Yes it was simply left out, this topic would need an extra discussion and analysis, I think it is not the main priority at this time, but is important to include now all the points we have to take into account, OK. The point was not that actuation should directly be part of the picture - it can indeed be discussed later. It is just that, from my point of view, the requirements on the "Discovery and Resolution of Things GE" that come from actuation are not fulfilled by the proposed architecture, i.e., T5.2 would not be fulfilling the requirements of T5.3 in this case (regarding functionality that in principle should be provided by T5.2). - IoT Reference Architecture We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. I'm not sure why you assume that, for me is only a global reference architecture for the IoT world, this world would include IoT-A and Sensei as well, why not. The goal of IoT-A is to develop a reference architecture for the IoT that exposes a number of design choices with different options. Your "reference architecture" already makes these choices, so from an IoT-A perspective, it is rather a derived architecture of a concrete instance. It may be possible to argue that your instance architecture can somehow be mapped to the IoT-A reference architecture (I still see some problems, but maybe we should check that). However, it is incompatible in important points with the SENSEI instance architecture (see the e-mail I sent yesterday regarding this topic). Btw. the SENSEI architecture was significantly shaped to be the way it is by TID colleagues. - OMA NGSI-9 As you say, some of these operations are not supported in OMA NGSI-9 so we will have to define an API which would also be exported by the "Things/Resources Configuration Management" component. So, my point of view is that those extensions would fit in the OMA-NGSI extension, indeed we can provide later those extension to OMA suggesting their inclusion in the standard. Anyway a question to analyze is whether we should go for extending NGSI-9 and fast-track results of such extension to OMA. The idea of the OMA NGSI interfaces is to define external enabler interfaces, which do NOT define architecture of the enablers themselves. Therefore, anything that is specific to the internal architecture of the enabler has no place in the OMA NGSI interfaces. An NGSI context enabler may or may not use IoT Services/resources as its basis, so such a concept has no place in OMA-NGSI. - Interaction with Resources We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Every Thing are described based on values that properties linked to Things take over time (resources' capabilities), so you wouldn't need necessarily direct interaction with its associated resources . We argue that certain (application) requirements cannot be supported without a (mediated) interaction between applications an resources, i.e., it is not sufficient to have data from resources, but you need to be able to interact with resources (mediated through the IoT system). - Workflows/Processes Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. OK, right, and do you see in those slides any constraint for that? Discovery processes can be based also on Things with this model of architecture. Well, the idea would be that you include IoT Resouces/Services as part of your workflow and you would need to find these based on a specification of Things. So you would need to retrieve associations specifying things and what you are interested (e.g. the attribute you want to retrieve or change) and get back the identifier of the IoT Service/Resource to then directly interact with that and integrate it into your workflow/process. - I do not see this currently supported as there is a complete decoupling. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 From: Ricardo de las Heras [mailto:rheras at tid.es] Sent: Freitag, 13. Januar 2012 12:38 To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); Martin Bauer; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; Ricardo de las Heras Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Martin, Tobias, Denes, @ll, first thank you for you feedback, now I answer to all of you in-line, joining all your comments in this mail: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: Hi all, Other questions emerge from Ricardo's slide: - The slide description says that the Configuration Repository contains "What are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves". However, the Inference Engine contains Association Rules. What are the difference between these two? Yes, Conf.Repository contains explicit relations (ex: these 2 sensors within the room A), however the Inference engine contains the Rules for generating new associations not explicitly defined yet, as for example 'if this sensor S1 is in room A, and room and is on the 1st floor, the inference defines a new association between S1 and the 1st floor, based on rules. - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? I think the previous example answer your question, those rules define the condition for create new associations, either static o dynamic. - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? I'm not going to define concepts out of the scope of T5.2, but from my point of view applications are subscribed to events through a set of rules, it would be managed by Data Handling. - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? The block named portal supplies a front-end in order to manage the associations rules, things-resources config. management, etc., we need in some way to provide this interface to the user administrator. - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? At this time I don't know what other type of elements could use the southbound interface as well for registering themselves. Virtual things maybe can be managed using a CEP for example, defining the way you combine two real sensors for creating a new one named 'virtual'. - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? Please don't imagine strange ideas, this component manages the catalog of Things, Resources and their associations (including properties, capabilities, etc) as it is explained in the text window associated to the 2nd slide. In the T5.2 high level architecture are called Things manager and Resource Directory. - The actuation part is definitely missing from the sketch. It is important to cater for that need. Either the Configuration Management or the Inference Engien should contain some kind of execution component that resolves the tasking requests toward devices or gateways. You are right, the data flows should consider that specific commands could be send to actuators, having in some way an engine defining the set of rules to fulfill in order to trigger a command to an actuator. But it could be managed in many ways. It is out of the scope of T5.2 and should be discussed within T5.3 I think. This is a first batch of questions. I hope they do make sense. Best, D?nes From: ext Martin Bauer [mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be "Actuation IoT Resources" and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Yes it was simply left out, this topic would need an extra discussion and analysis, I think it is not the main priority at this time, but is important to include now all the points we have to take into account, OK. Best regards, Martin From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I'm sharing Martin's concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? No :), I didn't want to take over of components out of the T5.2 scope, simply Data Handling, P/S/N Broker etc. are showed there for a better understanding of the slides and to put in context the different interfaces and interactions with the rest of the task within WP5. - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. I'm not sure why you assume that, for me is only a global reference architecture for the IoT world, this world would include IoT-A and Sensei as well, why not. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? My clarification for this question Martin is that the last slide shows GE blocks that clearly represent significant parts coming from other tasks and even wps (as wp6), like Publish Subscribe broker and the Observation Handler. Even the events repository could represent the interaction with the massive data storage GE coming from WP6 if needed, it would depend on the system requirements Those enablers are out of the scope of T5.2 but will fully support the Resource Management needs. - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. As you say, some of these operations are not supported in OMA NGSI-9 so we will have to define an API which would also be exported by the "Things/Resources Configuration Management" component. So, my point of view is that those extensions would fit in the OMA-NGSI extension, indeed we can provide later those extension to OMA suggesting their inclusion in the standard. Anyway a question to analyze is whether we should go for extending NGSI-9 and fast-track results of such extension to OMA. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. You say decoupling between Application and IoT resources, OK, I agree this point of view as well, this decoupling is in deed one of the principles followed in our IDAS architecture design. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. The upper applications layer directly interacts with Things and Resources, so I don't understand why you conceive that the Iot resources are not visible to applications. Sorry if this concept is not clear enough in the picture, but the idea is that applications directly interact with both, Things Manager and Resource Management (through the named Basic Repository Management). We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Every Thing are described based on values that properties linked to Things take over time (resources' capabilities), so you wouldn't need necessarily direct interaction with its associated resources . Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. OK, right, and do you see in those slides any constraint for that? Discovery processes can be based also on Things with this model of architecture. Best regards, Martin and Tobias -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From gianpiero.fici at telecomitalia.it Wed Jan 18 09:57:20 2012 From: gianpiero.fici at telecomitalia.it (Fici Gian Piero) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:57:20 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] First proposal for the Gateway-Backend API Message-ID: Hi all, here you may find enclosed a first proposal drafted by Sabrina for the channel between Gateway and Backend. Referring to the architecture described in FMC in the Forge Mediawiki this should be what it is called the "IoT API" in the Backend, but could also be used for the "Device Level API" in the Gateway if we adopt a "symmetric" architecture (in this case resources could be created both at network level and at local level, and they can be accessed both by local applications and by network applications). Please, feel free to express your opinion on this proposal. Ciao, Gian Piero Fici __________________________________ Telecom Italia Innovation & Industry Relations Research & Prototyping Future Internet Technologies & Research 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Interfaces_ IoT-I2ND_FI-WARE_v2.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 203264 bytes Desc: Interfaces_ IoT-I2ND_FI-WARE_v2.ppt URL: -------------- 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: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Wed Jan 18 13:11:13 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:11:13 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT Weekly Minutes 18.01.2012 Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056CAF1B@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Please find the IoT Weekly meeting minutes under the link below: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/725/IoT-Minutes-Telco-18012012.doc Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu Wed Jan 18 13:25:06 2012 From: Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu (Tobias Jacobs) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:25:06 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT Weekly Minutes 18.01.2012 In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056CAF1B@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD056CAF1B@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B97DF1@PALLENE.office.hd> Thanks a lot for the minutes. I just uploaded a new version with a few corrections/clarifications. Best, Tobias From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) Sent: Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2012 13:11 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT Weekly Minutes 18.01.2012 Please find the IoT Weekly meeting minutes under the link below: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/725/IoT-Minutes-Telco-18012012.doc Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Fri Jan 20 18:53:14 2012 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:53:14 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Inscription to the Social Event In-Reply-To: <4F105890.7080000@tid.es> References: <4F105890.7080000@tid.es> Message-ID: <4F19AA0A.7070704@tid.es> Dear all, Just a kind reminder. You can join the social event that will take place in Wednesday. See the instructions underneath. Something that I have been asked repeatedly. that needs clarifying: * TID will invite to the lunches at the canteen. * Each one will need to pay for the Social Event (30 eur - it's quite reasonable if you see what they offer) I hope to see you all there. In any case, see you in Madrid!!! Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: Inscription to the Social Event Fecha: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:15:12 +0100 De: Miguel Carrillo A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Dear all, The social event will take place on Wednesday the 25th at 9pm. We have looked for a reasonably priced and typical spot very near the Spanish Parlament in a quaint area of the town. We need numbers to book the place in advance. As you can guess, it is somewhat complicated to find room for so many people. Those who are going to make it please put your name & company on the following link. If someone really really has a problem with any type of food (for religious matters, allergies or whatever) there is an extra field to state it and we will ensure that he/she finds an acceptable alternative. The deadline to provide this info is Monday, the 23rd at 11am. Those not providing this info on time will have no guarantee of having a place at the table. * Inscription to the Social Event Details (also reflected on https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/MadridGeneralAssembly#Social_event in the private wiki): Date: January, 25 Time: 9:00 pm Venue: Restaurante Villagodio (http://restaurantevillagodio.com) Price: 30 eur Menu: STARTERS (1 plate of each to share between 4 people) Spanish ham and manchego cheese Red pepper stuffed with calamari and prawns Grilled Mushrooms Lac?n (a type of ham) Torreznos (fried fat, Spanish style, quite nice!) Grilled praws with salt Grilled ribs MAIN COURSE (one to choose) Baked Gilthead (bream) Baked Turbot Ox Entrec?te Entra?a (a type of meat) This includes french bread, desserts and coffee Drinks: included up to 2 beers or 2 soft drinks or half a bottle of wine per person If you need further details I am at your disposal. Best regards, Miguel -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 23 07:22:12 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:22:12 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1CFC94.1050004@tid.es> Hi, Sorry that I didn't jump on this discussion earlier, but I was on holidays from Jan 12 until Jan 17, then I had to attend the FI-PPP Architecture Board on Jan 18 and 19, and I haven't been able to catchup until now. I wish to provide an answer to Martin's, Denes' and Tobias' mails (I will start with that from Martin's and I hope I will be able to answer the rest along today). My answer will just complement what Ricardo has said, maybe going a bit further. I hope they are useful. I plan to join the architectural discussions during the IoT WP meetings and be able to contribute to a fruitful discussion. On 11/01/12 09:33, Martin Bauer wrote: Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. Well ... I understand that IoT-A/SENSEI are relevant and important inputs to the definition of a Reference Architecture but do not dictate us the solution. On the other hand, I also believe that our work could translate into valuable input for IoT-A, which as far as I know is relatively early in its developments. Nevertheless, I believe looking at your questions that there is no big issue on compatibility between the proposed solution and the principles in IoT-A. Let's elaborate on those open questions ... We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? The proposal describes how everything can work together. So, yes, it explain how data that is sensored can be handled and exported by the Things Management Layer through a NGSI-10 -like interface. In our Architecture Specifications, we have to explain how the different GEs can integrate together. I don't believe this is an issue but the kind of things we should do. - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a ?context enabler?. They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a ?context enabler?. OMA NGSI interfaces are defined in a way that the may be adapted to different usages. We are just explaining what components in a IoT Architecture would implement them and how these components would relate each other. We are not elaborating on rather detailed internal aspects. The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use ?context information?, whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the ?context enabler? with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the ?context enabler? to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. According to OMA, NGSI-9 interface enables to: * register and unregister entities, * update information about entities and properties (e.g., what properties are linked to a specific entity, but not values of properties defined for an entity which is something that is obtained through NGSI-10) * dynamically discover registration/unregistration as well as updates on properties. And that is the intended use in the Architecture. Given the fact that we have gone for adoption of NGSI as the basis for our work, I would find contradictory to say that we support NGSI-10 for basic exchange of data, but then we don't support NGSI-9 for the functions above. It gives me the impression that your vision on NGSI-9 is a bit limited. However, the above listed functions are not the only ones that the components handling access to the repository of entities and the information model have to provide through well-defined APIs. That's why we envision that we should define some sort of extension to NGSI-9 to deal with, for instance, the ability to register relationships among entities, and navigate through these relationships (apply discovery on relationships). My vision is that most of these extensions should be fast-tracked as optional interfaces in OMA (because not all Context Management systems, for example, may need to support the concept fo relationships between entities). I don't understand what you are trying to say when you state "this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI" ... As it was already mentioned in the slides, IoT resources may be treated just as any other entity from a NGSI perspective (this was something that was an open point for discussion, but based on your comments below, I would assume the right approach is that they should be treated as such). So there would not be any contradiction with OMA-NGSI. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. Wrong. Regarding "decoupling between application and IoT resources", I want to say that entities, as treated through the NGSI interfaces, can be translated to whatever we want in the IoT space, as long as we don't break any of the principles in the OMA conceptual model. Therefore, both Things and IoT resources can be treated as OMA entities, with the obvious relationships between one another. Neither OMA NGSI-9 nor NGSI-10 include operations that enable to manage relationships between entities, because that would not be a mandatory characteristic of a Context Management system, but there is nothing that prevents such relationships to exist and be manageable through a well-defined set of APIs that complement NGSI-9 and NGSI-10. If we allow IoT resources to be treated as OMA entities, we then achieve the direct access to IoT resources from applications you were requesting for. That simple. That elegant on the other hand. Issue solved. Regarding your comment that "the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture", I don't see why it cannot be adapted to run on IoT gateways, for example. We would just need to elaborate what components may not be there in such scenario or make some adjustments regarding description of how some of the interactions would be implemented. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous ?push?-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. I don't see the point you are trying to make. Using NGSI-10, applications will be able to consume events from entities (i.e., Things or IoT resources) both in a pull or push style of communication. That is what the Pub/Sub Broker GE will support. Whether integration with lower levels through southbound APIs is a push or pull style will depend very much on the characteristics of the southbound API (i.e., ETSI M2M or even OGC-like) The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Wrong assumption. These resolution functions (from Things to IoT resources) would be also accessible to applications through APIs as well as to the end users through the portal. Such functions would be accessible through a well-defined set of APIs which would work as an extension of NGSI-9. Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. The proposed slides just elaborated how everything would work together with data handling, but of course, could be easily extended to cope with actuation on IoT resources. Hope it helps, -- Juanjo Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 23 07:58:43 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:58:43 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <4F1D0523.5020502@tid.es> On 11/01/12 13:51, Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I?m sharing Martin?s concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? The intention was to show how all pieces could work together and how components dealing with data handling could interact with those components supporting the registration of entities (Things, IoT resources), the dynamic or static registration of relationships between those entities, and the discovery of entities and relationships between entities. - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. In describing how the different pieces may fit together, we actually just covered the scenario for data handling. It would be a matter of elaborating the scenario for actuation, which shouldn't be much more complex. Hope it helps, -- Juanjo Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a ?context enabler?. They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a ?context enabler?. The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use ?context information?, whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the ?context enabler? with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the ?context enabler? to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous ?push?-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 23 08:23:20 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:23:20 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <4F1D0AE8.8080308@tid.es> Hi, Please find responses to your questions below. As mentioned in a previous email, they just complement or elaborates answers provided by Ricardo a bit further. On 11/01/12 15:58, Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: Hi all, Other questions emerge from Ricardo?s slide: - The slide description says that the Configuration Repository contains ?What are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves?. However, the Inference Engine contains Association Rules. What are the difference between these two? Actually, the Configuration Repository is able to resolve what are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves. There are two aspects related to this: * Whether that information always map to records in the repository is subject to implementation. We foreseen that there may be relationships that will not be stored but be inferred and returned on-demand, in response to queries made by the application. It would be, as always, a trade-off between limit in storage and performance in time response. * There will be relationships that will be registered explicitly or can be inferred. The former are registered through a well-defined API. The later are derived by the Inference Engine. Again, based on the previous point, whether this second "inferred" relationships are stored in the Repository to improve response in discovery requests is subject to the particular implementation. Note also that when the Inference Engine actually "infers" a given relationship may vary on implementations. It may just perform those inferences whenever a discovery function is invoked or the Inference Engine may be kind of a Production System running on the background and creating the relationship records in the Configuration Repository whenever a relationship is inferred (e.g., the creation of a new entity, and the existence of rules that establish how entities of that type relate to other type of entities that may already exist, lead to creation of relationships in the configuration) - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? It would be able to handle rules that enable to infer how relationships between entities can be inferred or become out of date. We envision that the Inference Engine should support an API for creating/modifying/deleting rules. - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? The Event Storage, which is different from the Configuration Repository, was illustrated in the picture in order to explain how the different GEs could work together. - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? At the end of the day, the FI-WARE testbed should be able to support a portal that will ease setup and configuration of a given IoT space. Many of the functions exported by the Configuration Repository should be accessible through the portal, enabling endusers or administrators to interact with the system. - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? Registration of entities (either Resources or Things) could be made by the application or the portal (essentially through the same set of APIs which would include NGSI-9). Registration of IoT resources, in addition, could be made from the south layer, using whatever southbound API we support (e.g., ETSI M2M). Registration of IoT resources from the southbound may trigger actions in the Inference Engine that lead to inference about existence of a new virtual Things (this to be based on established rules). Registration of IoT resources from the southbound may also become visible to applications or endusers who are able, in turn, to determine that a new virtual Thing should be registered in the system. - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? I'm not sure I get this question, but maybe it's a matter of naming. I believe that the functions of the previously named "Services and Resources Interaction GE" are assumed by one or several of the components in the picture. Note that the proposed pictures elaborates further on how the Architecture of the GEs dealing with Management of Configuration Info may look like. It may supersede previous descriptions. - The actuation part is definitely missing from the sketch. It is important to cater for that need. Either the Configuration Management or the Inference Engien should contain some kind of execution component that resolves the tasking requests toward devices or gateways. As explained, integration with actuactions was simply not elaborated as integration with data handling was. It is just a matter of elaborating that aspect. It shouldn't be that difficult. Hope it helps, -- Juanjo This is a first batch of questions. I hope they do make sense. Best, D?nes From: ext Martin Bauer [mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be ?Actuation IoT Resources? and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I?m sharing Martin?s concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a ?context enabler?. They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a ?context enabler?. The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use ?context information?, whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the ?context enabler? with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the ?context enabler? to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous ?push?-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 23 08:24:44 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:24:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B978A8@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619244@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05619438@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> <4F10177C.6080705@tid.es> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B978A8@PALLENE.office.hd> Message-ID: <4F1D0B3C.7030800@tid.es> Hi, The proposed architecture would support both pull and push style of communications. Please check my previous response to other comments. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 13/01/12 16:39, Tobias Jacobs wrote: Dear Ricardo, Thanks a lot for your explanations. At this point let me try to summarize what I believe is the main conceptual difference between your architecture proposal and the approach of IoT-A/SENSEI. Please correct me if I am wrong. If you agree with my analysis, then we have a common basis for further discussion :). In one sentence: Your approach is mainly push-based, while the IoT-A/SENSEI approach is mainly pull-based. A bit more detailed: - In you approach, the devices are sending updates, it is then checked which Virtual Thing attributes are affected by the update, and the resulting updates are published in the pub/sub broker. Resolution here means determining the Virtual Thing attributes that are associated with the specific resource. - In the IoT/SENSEI approach, requests on the Thing level are coming from the applications. Applications first use resolution to find out the resources associated to the requested Thing attributes (note that resolution here works in the reverse direction) and then they address the corresponding resources. This process of first performing resolution and then getting the data from the corresponding resources can be automatized [which is done by the Thing-level interface in Task 5.4. in our view] Best regards Tobias 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: Freitag, 13. Januar 2012 12:38 To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); Martin Bauer; fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Martin, Tobias, Denes, @ll, first thank you for you feedback, now I answer to all of you in-line, joining all your comments in this mail: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) wrote: Hi all, Other questions emerge from Ricardo?s slide: - The slide description says that the Configuration Repository contains ?What are the relationships between IoT resources and Things and between Things themselves?. However, the Inference Engine contains Association Rules. What are the difference between these two? Yes, Conf.Repository contains explicit relations (ex: these 2 sensors within the room A), however the Inference engine contains the Rules for generating new associations not explicitly defined yet, as for example 'if this sensor S1 is in room A, and room and is on the 1st floor, the inference defines a new association between S1 and the 1st floor, based on rules. - There is an incoming arrow to the Inference engine that enables rule editing. The Inference Engine reads and writes the configuration repository. What else does it do? No other connections? What is it exactly for? I think the previous example answer your question, those rules define the condition for create new associations, either static o dynamic. - Although previously I mentioned that there is an Event Store in Data Handling, it is still curious who accesses it? I'm not going to define concepts out of the scope of T5.2, but from my point of view applications are subscribed to events through a set of rules, it would be managed by Data Handling. - Why is the Portal component within IoT? Is it part of the backend? The block named portal supplies a front-end in order to manage the associations rules, things-resources config. management, etc., we need in some way to provide this interface to the user administrator. - Only resources or gateways can register themselves from the southbound ETSI M2M interface? Can we have virtual things that may be calculated from actual devices? How do they fit into this architecture? At this time I don't know what other type of elements could use the southbound interface as well for registering themselves. Virtual things maybe can be managed using a CEP for example, defining the way you combine two real sensors for creating a new one named 'virtual'. - Why are the list of resources in the configuration management. I assumed they are already stored within the Services and Resources interaction GE. Is this a duplicate? Does the architecture of that GE change? Please don't imagine strange ideas, this component manages the catalog of Things, Resources and their associations (including properties, capabilities, etc) as it is explained in the text window associated to the 2nd slide. In the T5.2 high level architecture are called Things manager and Resource Directory. - The actuation part is definitely missing from the sketch. It is important to cater for that need. Either the Configuration Management or the Inference Engien should contain some kind of execution component that resolves the tasking requests toward devices or gateways. You are right, the data flows should consider that specific commands could be send to actuators, having in some way an engine defining the set of rules to fulfill in order to trigger a command to an actuator. But it could be managed in many ways. It is out of the scope of T5.2 and should be discussed within T5.3 I think. This is a first batch of questions. I hope they do make sense. Best, D?nes From: ext Martin Bauer [mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi Denes, all, - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Well, it is not so easy, as the general assumptions that seem to have been made for the Thing Management Architecture may not hold for actuation. There should be ?Actuation IoT Resources? and based on a given Thing ID and what should be actuated, a suitable IoT resource should be found and then it should be possible to contact this resource. Neither the interface for finding the IoT resource, nor the type of interaction that allows contacting the resource is currently foreseen in the TID proposal. Yes it was simply left out, this topic would need an extra discussion and analysis, I think it is not the main priority at this time, but is important to include now all the points we have to take into account, OK. Best regards, Martin From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2012 13:52 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Martin Bauer; ext Ricardo de las Heras Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, I checked the architecture in-depth and I?m sharing Martin?s concerns. - The Observation Handler, Publish/Subscribe Broker and the Events Repository is already present in the Data Handling GE on the gateway level. When working with IoT devices, the same components need to be present on the backend as well. Ricardo, can you clarify if you included these parts in your slides because you needed to show the connection between Data Handling and Resource Management, or you wanted to take over Data Handling functionality? No :), I didn't want to take over of components out of the T5.2 scope, simply Data Handling, P/S/N Broker etc. are showed there for a better understanding of the slides and to put in context the different interfaces and interactions with the rest of the task within WP5. - Thing-level actuation is not present on the slides, but they seem to be simply left out. I think we can iterate on including it. Best, D?nes From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Martin Bauer Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. I'm not sure why you assume that, for me is only a global reference architecture for the IoT world, this world would include IoT-A and Sensei as well, why not. We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? My clarification for this question Martin is that the last slide shows GE blocks that clearly represent significant parts coming from other tasks and even wps (as wp6), like Publish Subscribe broker and the Observation Handler. Even the events repository could represent the interaction with the massive data storage GE coming from WP6 if needed, it would depend on the system requirements Those enablers are out of the scope of T5.2 but will fully support the Resource Management needs. - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a ?context enabler?. They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a ?context enabler?. The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use ?context information?, whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the ?context enabler? with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the ?context enabler? to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. As you say, some of these operations are not supported in OMA NGSI-9 so we will have to define an API which would also be exported by the ?Things/Resources Configuration Management? component. So, my point of view is that those extensions would fit in the OMA-NGSI extension, indeed we can provide later those extension to OMA suggesting their inclusion in the standard. Anyway a question to analyze is whether we should go for extending NGSI-9 and fast-track results of such extension to OMA. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. You say decoupling between Application and IoT resources, OK, I agree this point of view as well, this decoupling is in deed one of the principles followed in our IDAS architecture design. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous ?push?-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. The upper applications layer directly interacts with Things and Resources, so I don't understand why you conceive that the Iot resources are not visible to applications. Sorry if this concept is not clear enough in the picture, but the idea is that applications directly interact with both, Things Manager and Resource Management (through the named Basic Repository Management). We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Every Thing are described based on values that properties linked to Things take over time (resources? capabilities), so you wouldn't need necessarily direct interaction with its associated resources . Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. OK, right, and do you see in those slides any constraint for that? Discovery processes can be based also on Things with this model of architecture. Best regards, Martin and Tobias -- ------------------------------------------- Ricardo de las Heras M2M Research Technological Specialist E-mail: rheras at tid.es Phone1: (+34) 983 367625 Phone2 OCS: (+34) 91 31 29511 Telef?nica Digital ------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu Mon Jan 23 10:22:43 2012 From: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu (Martin Bauer) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:22:43 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture In-Reply-To: <4F1CFC94.1050004@tid.es> References: <4F1CFC94.1050004@tid.es> Message-ID: Hi, I attach some slides that hopefully shed some more light on the discussion about interaction patterns. The first one is a decoupled pub-/sub- architecture and corresponds to how we understand the Telefonica proposal, which is supported by the Telecom Italia Publish-/Subscribe-Broker. We then argue why this is not suitable for some IoT scenarios and show the interaction style supported by the SENSEI architecture and ISIS. (Tobias or Ern? will present these slides in the WP5 meeting.) Below some comments to Juanjo's comments. We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. Well ... I understand that IoT-A/SENSEI are relevant and important inputs to the definition of a Reference Architecture but do not dictate us the solution. On the other hand, I also believe that our work could translate into valuable input for IoT-A, which as far as I know is relatively early in its developments. Nevertheless, I believe looking at your questions that there is no big issue on compatibility between the proposed solution and the principles in IoT-A. Let's elaborate on those open questions ... My point was not that FI-Ware has to directly take the IoT-A or SENSEI architecture, but 1) IoT-A and SENSEI before have already done a lot of architecture work, so it should not just be ignored. There should be good reasons why different decisions are taken. 2) Telefonica had earlier stated that it would like to see an alignment between the projects - I was just pointing out that apparently this position has changed. Regarding OMA NGSI, I would like to point out that Ern? and me were directly involved in the OMA NGSI standardization process. In fact, a significant share of the contributions towards the Context Interfaces came from us. Maybe that should be taken into consideration in the discussion about OMA NGSI-9/10. Looking at OMA NGSI-9, the interface is used for registering and discovering sources of context information, i.e., external applications (external context providers or "peer" context enablers) that can provide this information through an NGSI-10 interface. The idea is that the "context enabler" would query or subscribe to their context information through this interface. If the applications simply uses "update" to push information into the "context enabler", I don't think it would have to register. (This seems to be the case for the Pub-/Sub-Broker from Telecom Italia and they therefore do not implement NGSI-9). So, looking at OMA NGSI-9 again, of course it can be used in all cases where the "IoT Resource" provides an NGSI-10 interface for interaction. The URI that is registered should point to that NGSI-10 interface. Now, we should discuss whether this is realistic, or whether the "IoT Resources" rather implement ETSI M2M or OGC interfaces. In these cases, we might still use NGSI-9, but we have to make clear that the URI may point to a different interface and we need to provide the information what type of interface that is elsewhere. However, the above listed functions are not the only ones that the components handling access to the repository of entities and the information model have to provide through well-defined APIs. That's why we envision that we should define some sort of extension to NGSI-9 to deal with, for instance, the ability to register relationships among entities, and navigate through these relationships (apply discovery on relationships). My vision is that most of these extensions should be fast-tracked as optional interfaces in OMA (because not all Context Management systems, for example, may need to support the concept fo relationships between entities). In my opinion the relations between entities is content information that should rather be stored in and provided by IoT Resources, i.e., there is a property/attribute of a Thing that would point to the IoT Resource that can provide this information. This association would be stored in the Thing management, same as associations that refer to IoT Resources providing sensor data. This IoT Resource can be a large data storage and could implement an OMA NGSI-10 interface for access. I don't understand what you are trying to say when you state "this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI" ... As it was already mentioned in the slides, IoT resources may be treated just as any other entity from a NGSI perspective (this was something that was an open point for discussion, but based on your comments below, I would assume the right approach is that they should be treated as such). So there would not be any contradiction with OMA-NGSI. For me an IoT Resource is a functional component with an interface that can be accessed, i.e., that IoT resource would implement subscribe and query functionality. If you use OMA NGSI-9, the registered URI should point to this interface. What you are saying is that an IoT resource could also be modeled as a Thing - sure it can, but this is not the underlying functional component, which needs to be discovered. In certain scenarios, it is not sufficient to get the value that a resource has previously delivered to the system, but to actually contact the IoT Rresource itself. For enabling this, you cannot have a completely decoupled system (see attached slides). If we allow IoT resources to be treated as OMA entities, we then achieve the direct access to IoT resources from applications you were requesting for. That simple. That elegant on the other hand. Issue solved. No this is not true, see statement just above. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. I don't see the point you are trying to make. Using NGSI-10, applications will be able to consume events from entities (i.e., Things or IoT resources) both in a pull or push style of communication. That is what the Pub/Sub Broker GE will support. Whether integration with lower levels through southbound APIs is a push or pull style will depend very much on the characteristics of the southbound API (i.e., ETSI M2M or even OGC-like) I'm not talking about the NGSI-10 interface, indeed you can use both pull- or push-style communication there. I am talking about the internal communication within the WP5 IoT Enablers (see attached slides). Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Montag, 23. Januar 2012 07:22 To: Martin Bauer Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Re: [Fiware-iot] Feedback Thing Management Architecture Hi, Sorry that I didn't jump on this discussion earlier, but I was on holidays from Jan 12 until Jan 17, then I had to attend the FI-PPP Architecture Board on Jan 18 and 19, and I haven't been able to catchup until now. I wish to provide an answer to Martin's, Denes' and Tobias' mails (I will start with that from Martin's and I hope I will be able to answer the rest along today). My answer will just complement what Ricardo has said, maybe going a bit further. I hope they are useful. I plan to join the architectural discussions during the IoT WP meetings and be able to contribute to a fruitful discussion. On 11/01/12 09:33, Martin Bauer wrote: Hi all, We at NEC have started to look into the Thing Management Architecture proposal made by Telefonica. Up to now we had assumed (also from the high-level architecture document) that the architecture would be closer to IoT-A/SENSEI. Well ... I understand that IoT-A/SENSEI are relevant and important inputs to the definition of a Reference Architecture but do not dictate us the solution. On the other hand, I also believe that our work could translate into valuable input for IoT-A, which as far as I know is relatively early in its developments. Nevertheless, I believe looking at your questions that there is no big issue on compatibility between the proposed solution and the principles in IoT-A. Let's elaborate on those open questions ... We see a number of open questions and points that we would like to start discussing: - Scope of the proposal and relation to other tasks in the WP We have the impression that the proposal provides a certain functionality in a stand-alone fashion. How does the proposal relate to the other tasks, in particular T5.3 and T5.4? Is it correct to say that the proposal covers significant parts of data handling (T5.3) in that it gets the update events, stores them in the repository and dispatches them further? The proposal describes how everything can work together. So, yes, it explain how data that is sensored can be handled and exported by the Things Management Layer through a NGSI-10 -like interface. In our Architecture Specifications, we have to explain how the different GEs can integrate together. I don't believe this is an issue but the kind of things we should do. - NGSI-related questions The idea of the NGSI interfaces is that they define the external interfaces of a "context enabler". They do not define the internal aspects, i.e. the architecture, underlying concepts etc. of such a "context enabler". OMA NGSI interfaces are defined in a way that the may be adapted to different usages. We are just explaining what components in a IoT Architecture would implement them and how these components would relate each other. We are not elaborating on rather detailed internal aspects. The NGSI-10 interface is primarily intended for applications that use "context information", whereas NGSI-9 is intended for the interaction of the "context enabler" with peers or external context sources. They may provide context information which can be used by the "context enabler" to answer requests sent via NGSI-10. The peers or external context sources would typically implement NGSI-10 for accessing this context information. We are not sure whether the use of NGS-9 in the proposal is used as intended. You identify missing functionality, but we think that this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI and does also not fit the intended use. According to OMA, NGSI-9 interface enables to: * register and unregister entities, * update information about entities and properties (e.g., what properties are linked to a specific entity, but not values of properties defined for an entity which is something that is obtained through NGSI-10) * dynamically discover registration/unregistration as well as updates on properties. And that is the intended use in the Architecture. Given the fact that we have gone for adoption of NGSI as the basis for our work, I would find contradictory to say that we support NGSI-10 for basic exchange of data, but then we don't support NGSI-9 for the functions above. It gives me the impression that your vision on NGSI-9 is a bit limited. However, the above listed functions are not the only ones that the components handling access to the repository of entities and the information model have to provide through well-defined APIs. That's why we envision that we should define some sort of extension to NGSI-9 to deal with, for instance, the ability to register relationships among entities, and navigate through these relationships (apply discovery on relationships). My vision is that most of these extensions should be fast-tracked as optional interfaces in OMA (because not all Context Management systems, for example, may need to support the concept fo relationships between entities). I don't understand what you are trying to say when you state "this functionality is related to the internal structure of the system, i.e., IoT Resources are aspects of the internal structure and this concept does not exist in OMA-NGSI" ... As it was already mentioned in the slides, IoT resources may be treated just as any other entity from a NGSI perspective (this was something that was an open point for discussion, but based on your comments below, I would assume the right approach is that they should be treated as such). So there would not be any contradiction with OMA-NGSI. - General architectural concerns >From our point of view, the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture that is founded on a complete decoupling between applications and IoT resources, i.e. requests from applications cannot have any direct effects on the IoT resources as the latter publish their events independent of any request. Wrong. Regarding "decoupling between application and IoT resources", I want to say that entities, as treated through the NGSI interfaces, can be translated to whatever we want in the IoT space, as long as we don't break any of the principles in the OMA conceptual model. Therefore, both Things and IoT resources can be treated as OMA entities, with the obvious relationships between one another. Neither OMA NGSI-9 nor NGSI-10 include operations that enable to manage relationships between entities, because that would not be a mandatory characteristic of a Context Management system, but there is nothing that prevents such relationships to exist and be manageable through a well-defined set of APIs that complement NGSI-9 and NGSI-10. If we allow IoT resources to be treated as OMA entities, we then achieve the direct access to IoT resources from applications you were requesting for. That simple. That elegant on the other hand. Issue solved. Regarding your comment that "the proposal can be characterized as a (logically) centralized architecture", I don't see why it cannot be adapted to run on IoT gateways, for example. We would just need to elaborate what components may not be there in such scenario or make some adjustments regarding description of how some of the interactions would be implemented. The interaction type supported therefore is an asynchronous "push"-style M2M data transfer that does not allow any other interactions. I don't see the point you are trying to make. Using NGSI-10, applications will be able to consume events from entities (i.e., Things or IoT resources) both in a pull or push style of communication. That is what the Pub/Sub Broker GE will support. Whether integration with lower levels through southbound APIs is a push or pull style will depend very much on the characteristics of the southbound API (i.e., ETSI M2M or even OGC-like) The resolution (unlike in IoT-A) only works from IoT-data to Things, but not the other way round, i.e., the IoT resources are not visible and therefore accessible to applications or IoT components from T5.3 and T5.4. We currently do not see how Thing-based actuation can be supported in this approach as this required a resolution to IoT resources and then a direct interaction with these resources. (We also see use cases where queries should be directly forwarded to Iot Resources.) Wrong assumption. These resolution functions (from Things to IoT resources) would be also accessible to applications through APIs as well as to the end users through the portal. Such functions would be accessible through a well-defined set of APIs which would work as an extension of NGSI-9. Finally, the business processes/workflows planned in T5.4 require the Thing-based look-up/discovery of IoT Resources, which should then be directly integrated into the process execution. The proposed slides just elaborated how everything would work together with data handling, but of course, could be easily extended to cope with actuation on IoT resources. Hope it helps, -- Juanjo Best regards, Martin and Tobias ------------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Bauer Senior Researcher NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Laboratories Europe Software & Services Research Division Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168 Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155 E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu http://www.nw.neclab.eu ************************************************************* NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE IoT - Interaction Patterns.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 110356 bytes Desc: FI-WARE IoT - Interaction Patterns.pptx URL: From sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it Mon Jan 23 18:51:06 2012 From: sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it (Guerra Sabrina) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:51:06 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Internal interface Message-ID: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A5958E66F3@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Hi all, the two contributions that we've presented this afternoon are available on the Forge. The first one is at this link: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/741/TelecomItalia_IoT_Internal_Interfaces.ppt in the same folder (Task Forces/ETSI M2M) there is the other presentation: ETSI TC M2M.zip Best regards, Sabrina e Gian Piero 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: -------------- 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: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Tue Jan 24 09:29:21 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:29:21 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD057015A5@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> From: ext Lindsay Frost [mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:40 PM To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; GLIKSON at il.ibm.com; andreas.friesen at sap.com; axel.fasse at sap.com; Burkhard.Neidecker-Lutz at sap.com; ralli at tid.es; Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); jdps at tid.es; jimenez at tid.es; jhierro at tid.es; Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); matteo.melideo at eng.it; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Olivier.Festor at inria.fr; pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com; pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it; stefano.depanfilis at eng.it; thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch; torsten.leidig at sap.com Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena Subject: [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) Importance: High Dear colleagues in FI-Ware, welcome into 2012 A.D. ! Another year, another set of deadlines ... In the last email of Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena from 2011, there was a request to provide information for the FI-Ware standardization plan. I am tasked with filling in the relevant deliverable by the end of January - about 3 weeks from now. So far there is nearly nothing new to say, compared to the broad remarks given one year ago in applying for the project. I am sure this is not the impression you want to give to the EC about your organization... To make contributing a bit easier, I drafted the attached SHORT input formula. Could you please make sure your organization fills in Page 2 and returns it to me by Friday 13th January ? Thank you Lindsay Frost PS: if you are not the proper contact in your organization for this topic, please send me the correct email address and I will bother them instead ;-) _____________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. NEC Laboratories Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. NEC Europe Ltd, Reg. England, VAT DE161569151 frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 __________________________________ From: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena [mailto:juan.bareno at atosresearch.eu] Sent: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 13:43 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs Subject: WP11-Explotation Summary and Next Steps Dear Colleagues Please find here enclosed a initial presentation of what business issues regarding FI WARE have to be discussed to agree on a common message about FI WARE market positioning and the IPRs and Standardization activities management Additionally you can find the templates to fulfill aiming to obtain the exploitation and standardization issues feedback from each partner: - Exploitation: o Individual exploitation plan- by partner (Form 1) o Domain exploitation plan- by WPL (Form 2) - Standardization o Standardization Report- by WPL o Excel with main contacts- by partner Please review the presentation and send feedback and fulfill the templates accordingly I take advantage of this email to wish you all a very nice Christmas and a Happy New Year Br Juan Next week we will circulate a first commercial draft brochure Juan Bare?o Global Innovation, Business Development & Strategy Research & Innovation T +34 912148859 juan.bareno at atos.net Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atos.net www.atosresearch.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input_Request_Form_for_Standardisation_Plan_20120105.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 271103 bytes Desc: Input_Request_Form_for_Standardisation_Plan_20120105.docx URL: From mcp at tid.es Tue Jan 24 14:54:38 2012 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:54:38 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Change in meeting room Message-ID: <4F1EB81E.1030207@tid.es> Dear all, Due to a cancellation, room DCW01 S00P A32 is no longer available. Please use DCN01 S00P D13(10) instead. This is already reflected in the online agenda @RICARDO: by default, people have not access to building N1, as caretaker please make sure that they manage to get through! Sorry for the inconveniences this may cause, I am aware that this is going to make you walk between buildings twice but there are things we cannot control and getting a room for today in the last minute is very very difficult ... Best regards Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Tue Jan 24 18:17:02 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:17:02 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] GA Architectural Agreements Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD0573D9E6@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Dear all, During the GA Architectural Meeting in IoT we agreed on the following points: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/742/GA-Architecture-Agreements-24012012.docx Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Wed Jan 25 14:17:56 2012 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:17:56 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Link to minutes doc Message-ID: Hi All, this shared doc can be used to collect the minutes of our joint session today: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EnpG_itze4lEjw1Kqe9kQ6Adi6gSW8QX3elBI74zjtk/edit Hope it works fine... 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: -------------- 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: From sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it Wed Jan 25 11:56:16 2012 From: sabrina.guerra at telecomitalia.it (Guerra Sabrina) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:56:16 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) Message-ID: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A59670A212@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local> Hi Denes, we send you the document updated with our contributions. These contributions are related to WP5 and WP11. Let me know if it is ok or you need any other information. Best regards, Sabrina ________________________________ From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [denes.bisztray at nsn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:29 AM To: ext Jan H?ller Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] FW: [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) From: ext Lindsay Frost [mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:40 PM To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; GLIKSON at il.ibm.com; andreas.friesen at sap.com; axel.fasse at sap.com; Burkhard.Neidecker-Lutz at sap.com; ralli at tid.es; Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); jdps at tid.es; jimenez at tid.es; jhierro at tid.es; Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); matteo.melideo at eng.it; mcp at tid.es; nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu; Olivier.Festor at inria.fr; pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com; pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it; stefano.depanfilis at eng.it; thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; thomas.bohnert at zhaw.ch; torsten.leidig at sap.com Cc: Ernoe Kovacs; Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena Subject: [FI-Ware] Filling in the Standardisation Plan (due Friday 13th January) Importance: High Dear colleagues in FI-Ware, welcome into 2012 A.D. ! Another year, another set of deadlines ... In the last email of Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena from 2011, there was a request to provide information for the FI-Ware standardization plan. I am tasked with filling in the relevant deliverable by the end of January - about 3 weeks from now. So far there is nearly nothing new to say, compared to the broad remarks given one year ago in applying for the project. I am sure this is not the impression you want to give to the EC about your organization... To make contributing a bit easier, I drafted the attached SHORT input formula. Could you please make sure your organization fills in Page 2 and returns it to me by Friday 13th January ? Thank you Lindsay Frost PS: if you are not the proper contact in your organization for this topic, please send me the correct email address and I will bother them instead ;-) _____________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. NEC Laboratories Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. NEC Europe Ltd, Reg. England, VAT DE161569151 frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 __________________________________ From: Juan Bare?o Guerenabarrena [mailto:juan.bareno at atosresearch.eu] Sent: Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011 13:43 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Carmen Perea Escribano; Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs Subject: WP11-Explotation Summary and Next Steps Dear Colleagues Please find here enclosed a initial presentation of what business issues regarding FI WARE have to be discussed to agree on a common message about FI WARE market positioning and the IPRs and Standardization activities management Additionally you can find the templates to fulfill aiming to obtain the exploitation and standardization issues feedback from each partner: - Exploitation: o Individual exploitation plan- by partner (Form 1) o Domain exploitation plan- by WPL (Form 2) - Standardization o Standardization Report- by WPL o Excel with main contacts- by partner Please review the presentation and send feedback and fulfill the templates accordingly I take advantage of this email to wish you all a very nice Christmas and a Happy New Year Br Juan Next week we will circulate a first commercial draft brochure Juan Bare?o Global Innovation, Business Development & Strategy Research & Innovation T +34 912148859 juan.bareno at atos.net Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atos.net www.atosresearch.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input_Request_Form_for_Standardisation_Plan_20120105.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 257780 bytes Desc: Input_Request_Form_for_Standardisation_Plan_20120105.docx URL: -------------- 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: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Thu Jan 26 09:15:58 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:15:58 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] partner asset selection slides Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD0573E324@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Dear all, Please find the architectural slides that also have the asset selection under the links below: Big architectural slide with components: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/746/v04-CompleteArchitecture.pptx High-level slide, with the various gateway solutions: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/747/v03_Gateway+Architecture.pptx Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denes.bisztray at nsn.com Fri Jan 27 08:54:41 2012 From: denes.bisztray at nsn.com (Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:54:41 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Partner Asset Selection - April Release Message-ID: <3F4C11BC54A36642BFB5875D599F47BD05777771@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net> Dear all, I updated the gateway slides to show the current state of partner asset selection: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/11/750/AssetSelection-AprilRelease.pptx Best, D?nes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephan.haller at sap.com Fri Jan 27 18:16:30 2012 From: stephan.haller at sap.com (Haller, Stephan) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:16:30 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] High Level Architecture FMC diagram Message-ID: <0D2446AEB6CAED48BB046223733964A54C4B91EF00@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> All, As discussed in Madrid, I drafted a high-level overview-type FMC diagram. It shows backend, gateways and devices with only the components that are used for interfacing, not the internals of the gateway, device or backend. It reflects my current understanding, but I might be mistaken. In my opinion it is nice, clear and simple (compared to the PPT that has everything in) and would give a reader of the architecture document a good starting point. For the details, one would then refer to the gateway, backend and device FMCs. I tried to add this file to the SVN, but only got an "access forbidden" error. Any idea why? Regards, -Stephan Stephan Haller Development Architect - Internet of Things, SAP Research SAP (Schweiz) AG, Kreuzplatz 20, CH-8008 Z?rich, Switzerland T +41 58 871 78 45, F +41 58 871 78 12 mailto:stephan.haller at sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IoT-Overview.graphml Type: application/octet-stream Size: 52542 bytes Desc: IoT-Overview.graphml URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IoT-Overview.gif Type: image/gif Size: 23736 bytes Desc: IoT-Overview.gif URL: From mcp at tid.es Wed Jan 25 17:23:02 2012 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:23:02 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] Mettings with Cloud tomorrow Message-ID: <4F202C66.4010307@tid.es> Hi One of the timeslots of security and I2ND tomorrow will be reallocated tomorrow. The one from 9 to 10 remains untouched. However, the one from 10:00-11:00 will be changed, it will be a joint session between security and testbed. I'll change it on the agenda right away. This has been discussed with Pascal and Stefano, hope this is ok for I2ND... Best regards, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu Mon Jan 30 11:56:36 2012 From: Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu (Tobias Jacobs) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:56:36 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-iot] High Level Architecture FMC diagram In-Reply-To: <0D2446AEB6CAED48BB046223733964A54C4B91EF00@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> References: <0D2446AEB6CAED48BB046223733964A54C4B91EF00@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B988A3@PALLENE.office.hd> Hi all, I am having the same problem with svn commit as Stefan has, so this seems to be a general issue. Denes, as you have apparently successfully put stuff into the svn, is there some magic trick? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Haller, Stephan Sent: Freitag, 27. Januar 2012 18:17 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] High Level Architecture FMC diagram All, As discussed in Madrid, I drafted a high-level overview-type FMC diagram. It shows backend, gateways and devices with only the components that are used for interfacing, not the internals of the gateway, device or backend. It reflects my current understanding, but I might be mistaken. In my opinion it is nice, clear and simple (compared to the PPT that has everything in) and would give a reader of the architecture document a good starting point. For the details, one would then refer to the gateway, backend and device FMCs. I tried to add this file to the SVN, but only got an "access forbidden" error. Any idea why? Regards, -Stephan Stephan Haller Development Architect - Internet of Things, SAP Research SAP (Schweiz) AG, Kreuzplatz 20, CH-8008 Z?rich, Switzerland T +41 58 871 78 45, F +41 58 871 78 12 mailto:stephan.haller at sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Mon Jan 30 12:02:48 2012 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:02:48 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] High Level Architecture FMC diagram In-Reply-To: <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B988A3@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <0D2446AEB6CAED48BB046223733964A54C4B91EF00@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> <8755F290097BD941865DC4245B335D2D08B988A3@PALLENE.office.hd> Message-ID: <4F2678D8.1080800@tid.es> Hi I guess this bug is what you are talking about. We are pressurising the admin team to resolve it ASAP. https://forge.fi-ware.eu/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1145&group_id=28&atid=199 There are a couple of comments in Spanish at the beginning but it is mostly understandable. BR Miguel El 30/01/2012 11:56, Tobias Jacobs escribi?: Hi all, I am having the same problem with svn commit as Stefan has, so this seems to be a general issue. Denes, as you have apparently successfully put stuff into the svn, is there some magic trick? Thanks and best regards Tobias From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Haller, Stephan Sent: Freitag, 27. Januar 2012 18:17 To: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-iot] High Level Architecture FMC diagram All, As discussed in Madrid, I drafted a high-level overview-type FMC diagram. It shows backend, gateways and devices with only the components that are used for interfacing, not the internals of the gateway, device or backend. It reflects my current understanding, but I might be mistaken. In my opinion it is nice, clear and simple (compared to the PPT that has everything in) and would give a reader of the architecture document a good starting point. For the details, one would then refer to the gateway, backend and device FMCs. I tried to add this file to the SVN, but only got an ?access forbidden? error. Any idea why? Regards, -Stephan Stephan Haller Development Architect - Internet of Things, SAP Research SAP (Schweiz) AG, Kreuzplatz 20, CH-8008 Z?rich, Switzerland T +41 58 871 78 45, F +41 58 871 78 12 mailto:stephan.haller at sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Tue Jan 31 09:23:33 2012 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:23:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-iot] TR: [Fiware] Standardisation Plan Message-ID: Dear all, Please check for Wednesday if we have to add anything in the standardization plan, both from IoT point of view and from your company point of view. BR Thierry -----Message d'origine----- De?: fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Lindsay Frost Envoy??: mercredi 25 janvier 2012 16:56 ??: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc?: Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs Objet?: [Fiware] Standardisation Plan - 5 out of 26 Partners have answered - can you add your input? Importance?: Haute Dear all, many of you may not have received requests to contribute to the FI-Ware standardization plan, although a template and updates have been sent to work-package leaders. Attached is the accumulated "input" so far (5 out of 26), without any editing or re-organizing into a readable document or workplan. Please provide your input too! The workplan is due to be delivered to the EC on my birthday, 31st January, but I think it will be a sad birthday present with only 5 inputs so far! I hope that this "broadcast to all" will allow many of you to quickly get a consensus in your companies to provide the needed status information. Everything arriving by Monday 30th January 10:00 am I will include in the draft document I will send to you all on Monday night. Tuesday 31st is the last chance to correct all the thousand errors, or at least any major ones you find. Then the document gets delivered. If project leaders can show that a more delayed schedule is possible, I am of course happy for that (perhaps I misinterpret the deliverables schedule?). But that is the situation as I understand it. Best regards Lindsay Frost _____________________________________________ Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng. NEC Laboratories Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. NEC Europe Ltd, Reg. England, VAT DE161569151 frost at neclab.eu Mobile +49.163.275.1734 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-Ware_Input_for_Standardisation_Plan_5AnswersFrom26_20120125.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 284478 bytes Desc: FI-Ware_Input_for_Standardisation_Plan_5AnswersFrom26_20120125.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT4411841.txt URL: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Tue Jan 31 12:43:24 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:43:24 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-iot] IoT weekly meeting Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A2030797D8@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> When: 2012. febru?r 1. 11:00-12:30 (GMT+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague. Where: telco/webex Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Dear All, Please mind the new PIN code: 1628 For our next weekly meeting we are proposing the following topics: 1. The testbed topic: we have an Excel sheet to be filled, need to better understand what to achieve for the first release <> 2. Standardization topic: this is a deliverable for the end of this week <<[Fiware] Standardisation Plan - 5 out of 26 Partners have answered - can you add your input?>> 3. Architecture topic: should agree on the final version of the FMC diagram and agree on the next steps which means mainly editing in the wiki (deliverable is due 17th of February) We would also like to shift this instance from 10:00-11:30 to 11:00-12:30 at the request of our WPL, hopefully most of you can make it. Thanks & Br, Lorant Dear All, Let's resume our weekly meeting starting from next week in the usual day/time, which is Wednesday, 10:00 AM (CET) to 11:30. Either WPL or WPA will be present to host the meeting. In case we find good reason to skip the meeting, then we will skip it, but I propose not to deviate from this slot. Thanks & Br, Lorant Topic: IOT WP weekly Date: Every Wednesday, from Wednesday, 10 August 2011 to Wednesday, 26 March 2014 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 709 472 921 Meeting Password: FI-WARE ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&RT=MTgjMjM%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: FI-WARE 4. Click "Join Now". 5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=175018962&UID=0&PW=NYzEzYWM0ZTNk&ORT=MTgjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- NSN Voice Conference information Conference ID: 58465 New PIN: 1628 Making a conference call * from the office: 8071870 (in Finland and Germany) * from out of office: +358 7180 71870 (in Finland) and +49 89 5159 43800 (in Germany) All out-of-office conference access numbers are listed in page https://inside.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/MyServices/IT/Infrastructure_Services/RealTimeCommunication/VoiceService/NSNVoiceConference/MakingaCall/LocalAccessNumbers/Pages/Outofofficenumbers.aspx. Please check and prioritize them. If there is no access number for your country then please use access numbers of the area where to the calling costs are lowest. ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: lorant.farkas at nsn.com Argentina - Buenos Aires +54 11 5983 9400 (PRIMARY) or +54 11 4814 9373 Argentina - Cordoba +54 35 1568 2208 Australia - Sydney +61 28 014 7189 (PRIMARY) or +61 29 429 9664 Australia - Melbourne +61 38 739 4333 Austria +43 72 088 0245 Bahrain +97 31 619 9028 Belgium - Generic +32 1448 0116 Belgium - Diegem-Machelen +32 2710 3300 Brazil - Belo Horizonte +55 31 3956 0546 Brazil - Brazil +55 61 3717 2043 Brazil - Curitiba +55 41 3906 0826 Brazil - Manaus +55 92 3652 7576 Brazil - Rio De Janeiro +55 21 3958 0804 (PRIMARY) or +55 21 3431 1999 Brazil - Salvador +55 71 3717 5351 Brazil - Sao Paolo +55 11 5508 0630 Bulgaria +359 2491 7085 Canada - Ajax +1 90 5619 4346 Canada - Burnaby +1 60 4456 5897 Canada - Hamilton +1 905 581 0212 Canada - Mississauga +1 289 360 3950 Canada - Montreal +1 51 4789 9125 Canada - Ottawa +1 61 3800 0568 Chile - Santiago +56 2350 6485 China - Mainland +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Beijing +86 10 8405 5000 ext 1870 China - Chengdu +86 28 8689 0188 ext 1870 China - Dongguan +86 0769 2240 2844 ext 1870 China - Guangzhou +86 20 8755 6190 ext 1870 China - Hangzhou +86 571 8722 0877 ext 1870 China - Hong Kong +852 259 70220 ext 1870 China - Kunming +86 871 362 2880 ext 1870 China - Shanghai +86 21 6101 1870 ext 1870 China - ShenZhen +86 755 8613 3688 ext 1870 China - Suzhou +86 512 6761 6166 ext 1870 China - Zhengzhou +86 371 6566 9768 ext 1870 Colombia +57 1640 7979 ext 444 Croatia +38 51 777 6122 Czech Republic +42 02 460 19300 Denmark +45 699 18450 (PRIMARY) or +45 3329 2882 Egypt +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Estonia +37 266 67297 Finland +358 7180 71870 France +33 17 061 7813 (PRIMARY) or +33 14 915 1553 Germany +49 89 5159 43800 Greece +30 21 1176 8207 (PRIMARY) or +30 21 1120 3677 Hungary - Budapest +36 17 009 888 Hungary - Kom?rom +36 20 884 2499 India 000 800 100 7777 Indonesia - Jakarta (Menara Mulia/Plaza Kuningan +62 21 2557 9102 Indonesia - Bandung +62 22 8427 5992 Indonesia - Medan +62 61 3001 2702 Indonesia - Semarang +62 24 3300 0702 Ireland +353 1526 2862 Israel +97 29 775 1700 Italy - Milan +39 024 004 2007 Italy - Rome +39 069 481 6656 Japan +81 3 4578 0230 (PRIMARY) or +81 3 5474 7979 Kuwait +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Latvia +37 16 765 2510 Lithuania +37 0 5205 8994 Luxembourg +352 2088 0106 Malaysia +60 323 029 009 Mexico - Mexico City +52 55 3686 9759 (PRIMARY) or +52 55 5261 7245 Mexico - Reynosa +52 89 9909 1555 Netherlands +31 79 346 5225 New Zealand +64 9306 6933 Norway - Oslo +47 21 548 223 Oman +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Pakistan +92 512 092 444 Panama +507 832 7981 Peru +51 1708 5370 (PRIMARY) or +51 1215 7650 Philippines +63 2754 1700 Poland - Warsaw +48 22 398 8116 Poland - Wroclaw +48 71 718 1215 Portugal +351 21 044 4698 Qatar +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Romania +40 36 440 3799 Russia +74 95 725 2706 Saudi Arabia +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) Singapore +65 3103 1065 (PRIMARY) or +65 6723 2582 Slovakia +42 12 3300 6924 Slovenia +38 61 600 2713 South Africa - Johannesburg +27 1 0500 2221 South Africa - Pretoria +27 1 2004 2334 South Korea - Masan +82 5 5290 7690 South Korea - Seoul +82 2 2186 5088 Spain +349 1187 5929 Sweden +46 85 250 0862 (PRIMARY), +46 84 100 9299 Switzerland +41 44 279 7943 Taiwan +88 62 8175 9298 Thailand +66 2762 6750 Turkey +90 216 570 2345 Ukraine +38 044 520 2272 UK +44 12 5275 8334 UK - Camberley +44 12 5286 5849 UK - Church Crookham +44 12 5261 1100 UK - Huntingdon +44 14 8087 8220 (PRIMARY), +44 14 8044 4206 UK - London +44 20 3318 1924 United Arab Emirates +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) USA - Alpharetta +1 770 871 3050 USA - Arizona +1 480 588 3748 USA - Atlanta +1 404 236 4550 USA - Atlanta Notheast +1 678 317 3165 USA - Austin/Round Rock +1 512 600 2027 USA - Belleville +1 973 547 7982 USA - Boca Raton +1 561 910 2843 USA - Boston +1 617 963 8320 (PRIMARY) or +1 781 993 4850 USA - Burlington +1 781 993 4850 USA - Calabasas +1 818 914 0215 USA - Canoga Park +1 818 914 0215 USA - Cary +1 919 655 1388 USA - Chelmsford/Littleton +1 978 679 0233 USA - Chicago +1 773 303 4710 USA - Dallas +1 214 269 7626 USA - Dallas/Fort Worth +1 214 270 0352 USA - Greenville, NC +1 252 329 1677 USA - Herndon +1 703 483 4485 USA - Johnson City +1 423 952 1545 USA - Kirkland +1 425 242 3113 USA - Miami +1 786 388 4150 or +1 786 329 7177 USA - Naperville +1 630 596 2203 USA - New Brunswick +1 732 579 6483 USA - New Century, KS +1 913 254 5900 USA - New York White Plains +1 914 368 0650 USA - New York Peekskill, White Plains +1 914 293 1885 USA - Palo Alto +1 650 644 1349 USA - Redmond +1 425 242 3113 USA - San Diego +1 858 769 5309 or +1 619 330 9699 USA - Sunnyvale +1 408 419 1750 USA - Washington D.C +1 202 552 4781 Vietnam +84 4 3724 6110 Yemen +97 31 619 9028 (Bahrain nbr) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: meeting.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 11105 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Testbed-GE-requirements-012012.xlsx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18039 bytes Desc: Testbed-GE-requirements-012012.xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "ext Lindsay Frost" Subject: [Fiware] Standardisation Plan - 5 out of 26 Partners have answered - can you add your input? Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:56:15 +0200 Size: 393599 URL: