From mcp at tid.es Mon Mar 4 10:10:23 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:10:23 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? Message-ID: <513464FF.3040501@tid.es> Dear Stefano, Do we have our weekly meeting today? I am unsure, I do not see an entry on my agenda... Best, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 4 10:13:44 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:13:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? In-Reply-To: <513464FF.3040501@tid.es> References: <513464FF.3040501@tid.es> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FA1419@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> For me the problem persists: I can't join on the dedicated time (16:30-17:30) slot and I would vote for another "poll" to shift the call to a different time. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -----Original Message----- From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: Montag, 4. M?rz 2013 10:10 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? Dear Stefano, Do we have our weekly meeting today? I am unsure, I do not see an entry on my agenda... Best, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Mar 4 10:39:35 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:39:35 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? In-Reply-To: <513464FF.3040501@tid.es> References: <513464FF.3040501@tid.es> Message-ID: <20141_1362389977_51346BD8_20141_8656_7_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E2AA01A5@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Stefano, Same problem as for Thorsten I would not be able to make our audio conf of today on testbed so could we find another slot ? (very much appreciated if we could do ...). Hearing from you. Best Regards, Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De?: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Miguel Carrillo Envoy??: lundi 4 mars 2013 10:10 ??: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet?: [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? Dear Stefano, Do we have our weekly meeting today? I am unsure, I do not see an entry on my agenda... Best, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Mon Mar 4 11:23:07 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:23:07 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? In-Reply-To: <20141_1362389977_51346BD8_20141_8656_7_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E2AA01A5@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> References: <513464FF.3040501@tid.es> <20141_1362389977_51346BD8_20141_8656_7_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E2AA01A5@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <5134760B.2020601@nsn.com> Hi, due to might flight to a F2F meeting, I can't join today. For me, this timeslot is normally fine. Br, Loci On 03/04/2013 10:39 AM, ext BISSON Pascal wrote: > Dear Stefano, > > Same problem as for Thorsten I would not be able to make our audio conf of today on testbed so could we find another slot ? (very much appreciated if we could do ...). > > Hearing from you. > > Best Regards, > Pascal > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Miguel Carrillo > Envoy? : lundi 4 mars 2013 10:10 > ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Confcall today? > > Dear Stefano, > > Do we have our weekly meeting today? I am unsure, I do not see an entry on my agenda... > > Best, > > Miguel > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Tue Mar 12 09:17:44 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Feedback by UC projects on your GE: Instant Mobility In-Reply-To: <9CDABAE310912A43A8F51500FAA484F91B78981BCE@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> References: <9CDABAE310912A43A8F51500FAA484F91B78981BCE@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FAB348@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, Thanks for taking the feedback of the use case project Instant Mobility seriously - can you please briefly let me know which actions did you take in order to - update your wiki accordingly - update your tracker accordingly - update/improve your software/GE accordingly - approach colleagues from the use case projects with followups (if yes, briefly mention what the outcome was) - discuss it within your work package and/or your company We are currently planning to integrate the feedback you provide to this email in the M24-deliverable of WP10, which will handle the "validation execution" and "feedback" channels ("10.5.2 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects") Please support us as well if you received any additional information which might help to improve the content of this deliverable (e.g. contact with and feedback from UC projects) via other channels. Thank a lot for your support, /Thorsten -----Original Message----- From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Dienstag, 19. Februar 2013 14:17 To: thierry.nagellen at orange.com; maarten.los at atosresearch.eu; Heijnen Henk (henk.heijnen at technicolor.com); e.fiware1 at tid.es; e.samson at tid.es; TALI at il.ibm.com; TRABELSI, Slim; wolfgang.steigerwald at telekom.de; tanguy.bourgault at thalesaleniaspace.com; boris.moltchanov at telecomitalia.it; sergio.rolando at guest.telecomitalia.it; boris.moltchanov at telecomitalia.it; fabioluciano.mondin at telecomitalia.it; samson-broker-support at lists.fi-ware.eu; Leidig, Torsten Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; stefano de panfilis; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Feedback by UC projects on your GE: Instant Mobility Dear GE-providers, Please find attached the feedback, gathered from one of the Use case projects in relation to your GE provided through the WP10/Testbed workpackage to you. Please forward this information to people I might have forgotten on the list. As you probably know, the UC projects are currently following a validation process, defined within https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/D.10.5.1.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page They expressed their opinion with the help of the attached xls-table. No it is your turn - use the feedback to refine your requirements and components or approach the use case projects directly and gather perhaps some quotes or to position your component within the rest of the project lifetime. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs Enterprise Platforms SAP Next Business and Technology SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -----Original Message----- From: DAUTELLE Jean-Marie [mailto:jean-marie.dautelle at thalesgroup.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2013 10:06 To: DAUTELLE Jean-Marie; stefano de panfilis; ab at fi-ppp.eu Cc: wp5 at instant-mobility.com; Sandfuchs, Thorsten; wp4 at instant-mobility.com; BISSON Pascal Subject: RE: Instant Mobility GE Validation Report. - Errata Ooops! Wrong version of the document has been sent. The correct (latest) version is attached. Jean-Marie Dautelle - Senior Architect Smart Systems Laboratory - Thales Services S.A.S. Campus Polytechnique - 1 avenue Auguste Fresnel - 91767 Palaiseau Cedex Tel. +33 (0)1 69 41 55 64 Mob. +33 (0)6 45 45 40 63 E-mail: jean-marie.dautelle at thalesgroup.com -----Message d'origine----- De : Wp4 [mailto:wp4-bounces at instant-mobility.com] De la part de DAUTELLE Jean-Marie Envoy? : mercredi 6 f?vrier 2013 09:54 ? : stefano de panfilis; ab at fi-ppp.eu Cc : wp5 at instant-mobility.com; Thorsten Sandfuchs; wp4 at instant-mobility.com; BISSON Pascal Objet : [IM Wp4] Instant Mobility GE Validation Report. Hello All, Attached you will find Stefano spreadsheet filled up with our feedback with regards to GE validation/integration. There will be a more complete report (in Word format) to be provided as an annex to the Instant Mobility deliverables (M24). Best Regards, Jean-Marie Dautelle - Instant Mobility Architecture Board Representative Smart Systems Laboratory - Thales Services S.A.S. Campus Polytechnique - 1 avenue Auguste Fresnel - 91767 Palaiseau Cedex Tel. +33 (0)1 69 41 55 64 Mob. +33 (0)6 45 45 40 63 E-mail: jean-marie.dautelle at thalesgroup.com -----Message d'origine----- De : ab-bounces at fi-ppp.eu [mailto:ab-bounces at fi-ppp.eu] De la part de stefano de panfilis Envoy? : vendredi 25 janvier 2013 10:29 ? : ab at fi-ppp.eu Cc : Thorsten Sandfuchs Objet : [FI-PPP AB] evaluation of fi-ware ge by uc projects dear colleagues, please find attached the version of the questionnaire for the evaluation of the fi-ware ge as per phase 1. this new version take into account the comments we received from you (arne in particular). we produced for your convenience a file for each project. if needed we could comment and sicuss it during our next f2f meeting in brussels next 6-7 feb. anyway do not hesitate to contact for any help you migth need. ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Tue Mar 12 09:18:34 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:18:34 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Feedback by UC projects on your GE: SMART AGRIFOOD In-Reply-To: <9CDABAE310912A43A8F51500FAA484F91B78981BD5@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> References: <9CDABAE310912A43A8F51500FAA484F91B78981BD5@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FAB392@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, Thanks for taking the feedback of the use case project SMART AGRIFOOD seriously - can you please briefly let me know which actions did you take in order to - update your wiki accordingly - update your tracker accordingly - update/improve your software/GE accordingly - approach colleagues from the use case projects with followups (if yes, briefly mention what the outcome was) - discuss it within your work package and/or your company We are currently planning to integrate the feedback you provide to this email in the M24-deliverable of WP10, which will handle the "validation execution" and "feedback" channels ("10.5.2 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects") Please support us as well if you received any additional information which might help to improve the content of this deliverable (e.g. contact with and feedback from UC projects) via other channels. Thank a lot for your support, /Thorsten -----Original Message----- From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Dienstag, 19. Februar 2013 15:27 To: Alex Glikson (GLIKSON at il.ibm.com); Heijnen Henk (henk.heijnen at technicolor.com); jsoriano at fi.upm.es; boris.moltchanov at telecomitalia.it; sergio.rolando at guest.telecomitalia.it; Leidig, Torsten; tobias.jacobs at neclab.eu; thierry.nagellen at orange.com; maarten.los at atosresearch.eu; wolfgang.steigerwald at telekom.de; robert.seidl at nsn.com; gerald.meyer at nsn.com; marco.ughetti at telecomitalia.it; davide.cappadona at guest.telecomitalia.it; TALI at il.ibm.com Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; stefano de panfilis; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Feedback by UC projects on your GE: SMART AGRIFOOD Dear GE-providers, Please find attached the feedback, gathered from one of the Use case projects in relation to your GE provided through the WP10/Testbed workpackage to you. Please forward this information to people I might have forgotten on the list. As you probably know, the UC projects are currently following a validation process, defined within https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/D.10.5.1.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page They expressed their opinion with the help of the attached xls-table. No it is your turn - use the feedback to refine your requirements and components or approach the use case projects directly and gather perhaps some quotes or to position your component within the rest of the project lifetime. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs Enterprise Platforms SAP Next Business and Technology SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -----Original Message----- From: DAUTELLE Jean-Marie [mailto:jean-marie.dautelle at thalesgroup.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2013 10:06 To: DAUTELLE Jean-Marie; stefano de panfilis; ab at fi-ppp.eu Cc: wp5 at instant-mobility.com; Sandfuchs, Thorsten; wp4 at instant-mobility.com; BISSON Pascal Subject: RE: Instant Mobility GE Validation Report. - Errata Ooops! Wrong version of the document has been sent. The correct (latest) version is attached. Jean-Marie Dautelle - Senior Architect Smart Systems Laboratory - Thales Services S.A.S. Campus Polytechnique - 1 avenue Auguste Fresnel - 91767 Palaiseau Cedex Tel. +33 (0)1 69 41 55 64 Mob. +33 (0)6 45 45 40 63 E-mail: jean-marie.dautelle at thalesgroup.com -----Message d'origine----- De?: Wp4 [mailto:wp4-bounces at instant-mobility.com] De la part de DAUTELLE Jean-Marie Envoy??: mercredi 6 f?vrier 2013 09:54 ??: stefano de panfilis; ab at fi-ppp.eu Cc?: wp5 at instant-mobility.com; Thorsten Sandfuchs; wp4 at instant-mobility.com; BISSON Pascal Objet?: [IM Wp4] Instant Mobility GE Validation Report. Hello All, Attached you will find Stefano spreadsheet filled up with our feedback with regards to GE validation/integration. There will be a more complete report (in Word format) to be provided as an annex to the Instant Mobility deliverables (M24). Best Regards, Jean-Marie Dautelle - Instant Mobility Architecture Board Representative Smart Systems Laboratory - Thales Services S.A.S. Campus Polytechnique - 1 avenue Auguste Fresnel - 91767 Palaiseau Cedex Tel. +33 (0)1 69 41 55 64 Mob. +33 (0)6 45 45 40 63 E-mail: jean-marie.dautelle at thalesgroup.com -----Message d'origine----- De?: ab-bounces at fi-ppp.eu [mailto:ab-bounces at fi-ppp.eu] De la part de stefano de panfilis Envoy??: vendredi 25 janvier 2013 10:29 ??: ab at fi-ppp.eu Cc?: Thorsten Sandfuchs Objet?: [FI-PPP AB] evaluation of fi-ware ge by uc projects dear colleagues, please find attached the version of the questionnaire for the evaluation of the fi-ware ge as per phase 1. this new version take into account the comments we received from you (arne in particular). we produced for your convenience a file for each project. if needed we could comment and sicuss it during our next f2f meeting in brussels next 6-7 feb. anyway do not hesitate to contact for any help you migth need. ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Tue Mar 12 13:21:05 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:21:05 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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 pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Tue Mar 12 15:48:56 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:48:56 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: * D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.5.1 * D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D10.4.1 * D10.5.1 * D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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 mcp at tid.es Wed Mar 13 18:32:54 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:32:54 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> Message-ID: <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: * D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.5.1 * D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D10.4.1 * D10.5.1 * D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 axel.fasse at sap.com Thu Mar 14 11:50:34 2013 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Miguel, I agree with your idea to discuss this within the next WPL/WPA Call, because we have to discuss the "details and aspects" that are missing within the complete team. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: Mittwoch, 13. M?rz 2013 18:33 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: * D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.5.1 * D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D10.4.1 * D10.5.1 * D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 15 01:43:46 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 01:43:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [FI-PPP AB] FI-WARE GE Validation - FInest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear thorsten and all, please find fwd the validation questionnaire filled by finest. ciao, stefano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metzger, Andreas Date: 2013/3/13 Subject: [FI-PPP AB] FI-WARE GE Validation - FInest To: Stefano De Panfilis Cc: "ab at fi-ppp.eu" Dear Stefano (and AB for information), Please find attached the GE validation results from FInest. As a general impression, the validation questions were quite helpful to provide feedback. The only issue we faced in our case was due to the fact that we evaluated the GEs per prototype component and not for specific scenarios. Best regards, Andreas PS: Please note that in the XLS *all* GEs validated should be considered of status "D". I changed on the second sheet but the pivot table does not seem to update correctly. -- Dr.-Ing. Andreas Metzger Head of Adaptive Systems and Future Internet Applications Paluno (The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology) * University of Duisburg-Essen Gerlingstra?e 16 * 45127 Essen * Germany * callto:+49-201-183-4650 * fax: +49-201-183-4699 mailto:andreas.metzger at paluno.uni-due.de * http://www.paluno.eu * VAT-Nr. DE811272995 -- _______________________________________________ Ab mailing list Ab at fi-ppp.eu http://lists.fi-ppp.eu/mailman/listinfo/ab -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-03-GE_Validation_FINEST-v1.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 37647 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-03-GE_Validation_FINEST-v1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 380056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Fri Mar 15 14:19:45 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:19:45 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FAFEEA@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, Thanks for your support in the matter. I'm preparing the relevant background material for the WPL/WPA meeting to be send via email by EOB today, as follows. Unfortunately I won't be able to join the WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if they would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic. Any objections? Otherwise this will be send today. Best, /Thorsten Dear WPL/WPA, This is to make you all aware and start the discussion on one of the parts of the Review report concerning the validation topic (10.5.1). Status: - D.10.5.1 (validation report) was rejected (as attached below) and they expect a resolved version of the validation report for M24 (already end of April) - Main point from the reviewers: validation report does not met the expectations set by the DoW. 1. UC requirements are not linked to the validation (Personal assumption: ... as they were not properly recorded in the first place) 2. Non-functional capabilities are not part of the presented evaluation approach - This can't be resolved on the testbed-level, we have to start the resolution and discussion on the WPL/WPA level My personal opinion to the matter: - The validation process was aligned between the UC and FI-WARE and was part of an official AB-resolution - The requirement matrix can't be established, as we do not have a concise list of requirements by the UCs. - For the non-functional capabilities we need to come up with a new approach - currently I don't know have a good idea on how to approach this - do you have any other agile processes where non-functional capabilities are part of the validation? Our (quiet obvious) options for 1. (UC requirement links) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and try to intro a link between the "requirements"/"feature"-list and the UC validation (although I personally won't know who would really be able to fill in if a feature is really present ) II. Convince the reviewers that the AB board decision overrules the DoW (potentially and just-to-be-sure: this should be communicated before the next review and potentially clarified with the PO) III. ... < your options go here > :) Our (quiet obvious) options for 2. (non-functional capabilities) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and introduce a new process on how to (Who can contribute here?) II. ... < your options go here > :) Unfortunately I won't be able to join the WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if you would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic. Thanks for any feedback and input and best regards, /Thorsten Attachement: D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: Mittwoch, 13. M?rz 2013 18:33 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: * D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.5.1 * D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D10.4.1 * D10.5.1 * D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 15 15:16:23 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:16:23 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> Message-ID: dear miguel and all, i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear proposal. as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this will be our work. for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? otherwise we go for pownow. ciao, stefano 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo > Dear all, > > Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we > either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how > to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to > find a suitable new version with something more convincing. > > Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking > into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the > document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in > the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the > heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why > they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at > all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level > (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) > > Best regards, > > Miguel > > El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: > > Hi Thorsten, > > > > For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn?t require resubmission simply > because as stated in the review report: ?the next iterative version is due > in the next review period. > > > > See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. > > > > =============================================== > > The following deliverables are rejected: > > ? D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) > > ? D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) > > ? D4.5.1 > > ? D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) > > ? D10.4.1 > > ? D10.5.1 > > ? D10.5.1 > > None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next > iterative version is due in > > the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments > are given. > > ====================================================== > > > > Best Regards, > > Pascal > > *De :* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] > *De la part de* Sandfuchs, Thorsten > *Envoy? :* mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 > *? :* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Objet :* [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: > [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review > report) > > > > Dear colleagues, > > Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable > 10.5.1 ?means?? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any > resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the > situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy > between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB > level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here ? or do we? At least > the reviewers leave it open L > > > > So what do YOU think we should do? > > > > I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report > for WP10 in due time. > > > > Best regards, > > > > /Thorsten > > > > *D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case > projects* > > This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process > for the use cases > > to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate > and send to the use > > case projects and the main findings are outlined. > > The validation process described in the document is generally well thought > and detailed; > > however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the > FI-WARE project and > > FI-WARE Releases. > > The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what > is envisaged in the > > DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and > validation of the > > conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the > deliverable, the > > design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been > successfully > > communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the > link between > > Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is > not readily > > traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent > to which the Agile > > best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is > no tight linkage > > between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE > providers. Hence, the > > validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements > matrix, but will > > follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is > presently basic, and is > > a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the > characterisation of Use > > Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally > boost GE uptake. > > Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to > the non-functional > > capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical > Roadmap is yet to be > > described. > > Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, > > > > > > *From:* fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] > *On Behalf Of *Juanjo Hierro > *Sent:* Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 > *To:* fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & > Review report > > > > Dear partners, > > I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. > > I'll come to this after I read it carefully. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > > > > ------------- > > 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) Coordinator > > and 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: * > > FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report > > *Date: * > > Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 > > *From: * > > > > *To: * > > > > *CC: * > > , > , , > , , > , > , > > > > Dear Mr Hierro, > > > > Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review > report of project 285248 FI-WARE. > > > > Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. > > > > Many thanks in advance > > > > Best regards, > > > > Vanessa Vanhumbeeck > > *European Commission* > > DG CONNECT > > Unit E3 ? Net Innovation > > > > Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 > Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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-testbed mailing listFiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.euhttps://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clara.pezuela at atosresearch.eu Fri Mar 15 15:40:00 2013 From: clara.pezuela at atosresearch.eu (Clara M Pezuela Robles) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:40:00 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> Message-ID: <2E6842FF4FDB5A47B877C8CADB9D76FD014DCFA2@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Stefano, I have another confcall on Tuesday at 17:00, so I could only attend half an hour unless you shift it a bit earlier Thanks Clara Pezuela Head of IT Sector Research and Innovation Group Atos Spain SA Clara.pezuela at atos.net +34 91 214 8609 +34 675 62 9974 From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: viernes, 15 de marzo de 2013 15:16 To: Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) dear miguel and all, i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear proposal. as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this will be our work. for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? otherwise we go for pownow. ciao, stefano 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: ? D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) ? D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) ? D4.5.1 ? D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) ? D10.4.1 ? D10.5.1 ? D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open L So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 11614 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 15 16:26:18 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:26:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: <2E6842FF4FDB5A47B877C8CADB9D76FD014DCFA2@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> <2E6842FF4FDB5A47B877C8CADB9D76FD014DCFA2@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: dear all, are you available at 16:00? please can anybody provide a phc bridge? ciao, stefano 2013/3/15 Clara M Pezuela Robles > Stefano, I have another confcall on Tuesday at 17:00, so I could only > attend half an hour unless you shift it a bit earlier**** > > ** ** > > Thanks**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Clara Pezuela**** > > Head of IT Sector**** > > Research and Innovation Group**** > > Atos Spain SA**** > > Clara.pezuela at atos.net **** > > +34 91 214 8609**** > > +34 675 62 9974**** > > [image: Atos_Olympic_Games_Logo_signature]**** > > ** ** > > *From:* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto: > fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *stefano de > panfilis > *Sent:* viernes, 15 de marzo de 2013 15:16 > *To:* Miguel Carrillo > *Cc:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: > [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review > report)**** > > ** ** > > dear miguel and all,**** > > i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the > attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc.**** > > there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we > need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear > proposal.**** > > as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think > we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in > agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. > **** > > certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this > will be our work.**** > > for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to > postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. > > the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for > numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one?**** > > otherwise we go for pownow.**** > > ciao, > stefano**** > > ** ** > > 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo **** > > Dear all, > > Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we > either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how > to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to > find a suitable new version with something more convincing. > > Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking > into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the > document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in > the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the > heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why > they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at > all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level > (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) > > Best regards, > > Miguel**** > > El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?:**** > > Hi Thorsten,**** > > **** > > For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn?t require resubmission simply > because as stated in the review report: ?the next iterative version is due > in the next review period. **** > > **** > > See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report.**** > > **** > > ===============================================**** > > The following deliverables are rejected:**** > > ? D2.4.1b (being a re-submission)**** > > ? D4.1.1b (being a re-submission)**** > > ? D4.5.1**** > > ? D5.1.1b (being a re-submission)**** > > ? D10.4.1**** > > ? D10.5.1**** > > ? D10.5.1**** > > None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next > iterative version is due in**** > > the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments > are given.**** > > ======================================================**** > > **** > > Best Regards,**** > > Pascal**** > > *De :* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] > *De la part de* Sandfuchs, Thorsten > *Envoy? :* mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 > *? :* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Objet :* [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: > [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review > report)**** > > **** > > Dear colleagues,**** > > Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable > 10.5.1 ?means?? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any > resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the > situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy > between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB > level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here ? or do we? At least > the reviewers leave it open L**** > > **** > > So what do YOU think we should do?**** > > **** > > I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report > for WP10 in due time.**** > > **** > > Best regards,**** > > **** > > /Thorsten* > *** > > **** > > *D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case > projects***** > > This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process > for the use cases**** > > to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate > and send to the use**** > > case projects and the main findings are outlined.**** > > The validation process described in the document is generally well thought > and detailed;**** > > however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the > FI-WARE project and**** > > FI-WARE Releases.**** > > The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what > is envisaged in the**** > > DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and > validation of the**** > > conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the > deliverable, the**** > > design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been > successfully**** > > communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the > link between**** > > Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is > not readily**** > > traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent > to which the Agile**** > > best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is > no tight linkage**** > > between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE > providers. Hence, the**** > > validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements > matrix, but will**** > > follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is > presently basic, and is**** > > a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the > characterisation of Use**** > > Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally > boost GE uptake.**** > > Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to > the non-functional**** > > capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical > Roadmap is yet to be**** > > described.**** > > Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required,**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] > *On Behalf Of *Juanjo Hierro > *Sent:* Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 > *To:* fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & > Review report**** > > **** > > Dear partners, > > I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. > > I'll come to this after I read it carefully. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo**** > > > > **** > > -------------**** > > 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) Coordinator **** > > and 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: ***** > > FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report**** > > *Date: ***** > > Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000**** > > *From: ***** > > **** > > *To: ***** > > **** > > *CC: ***** > > , > , , > , , > , > , > **** > > **** > > Dear Mr Hierro,**** > > **** > > Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review > report of project 285248 FI-WARE.**** > > **** > > Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.**** > > **** > > Many thanks in advance**** > > **** > > Best regards,**** > > **** > > Vanessa Vanhumbeeck**** > > *European Commission***** > > DG CONNECT**** > > Unit E3 ? Net Innovation**** > > **** > > Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 > Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > > 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-testbed mailing list**** > > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu**** > > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed**** > > > > **** > > -- **** > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------**** > > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco**** > > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica **** > > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 **** > > _/ _/ _/ _/ 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**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed**** > > > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567**** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 11614 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Fri Mar 15 16:31:32 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:31:32 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB02BD@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Hi Stefano, As you probably read by now (my mail to the list from 15/03/2013 14:19) I think as well that the main part is to convince the reviewers that the AB did overrule the DoW - for good reasons. I don't think that we need more internal alignment on this point, but should try to find within the WPL/WPA meeting some supporters and finally have somebody to bring this forward to a) the PO and b) the next review. So I don't think that we need to postpone the involvement of the WPL/WPA any longer as we have consensus here on the way forward. Concerning your comment that it was not communicated that way - here is the related part of the delivered deliverable: As for timing reasons this process has been not implemented exactly as described. In consensus with all parties and with agile methodologies applied, there will be no tight linkage between defined requirements (as there aren't that many defined by the use case projects) and the features, provided by the GE providers (as they are more, than initially requested). The validation and requirements evaluation will therefore be posted not towards a requirement matrix, it follows largely an dedicated and open questionnaire approach, where the feedback of the involved parties will be gathered centrally and subsequently new requirements will be introduced to the FI-WARE team. Source: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/The_FI-WARE_Evaluation_Approach and even the reviewers "read" this comment and even added to it: As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake Best, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Freitag, 15. M?rz 2013 15:16 To: Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) dear miguel and all, i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear proposal. as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this will be our work. for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? otherwise we go for pownow. ciao, stefano 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo > Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: * D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.5.1 * D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D10.4.1 * D10.5.1 * D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Fri Mar 15 16:34:30 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:34:30 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> <2E6842FF4FDB5A47B877C8CADB9D76FD014DCFA2@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB02DD@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> In general Tuesday would be finde for me as well, but not the coming one, as there is the same full-day-event, which prevents me from joining the WPL/WPA meeting On this Tuesday I would be free starting from 17:30 Best, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Freitag, 15. M?rz 2013 16:26 To: Clara M Pezuela Robles Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) dear all, are you available at 16:00? please can anybody provide a phc bridge? ciao, stefano 2013/3/15 Clara M Pezuela Robles > Stefano, I have another confcall on Tuesday at 17:00, so I could only attend half an hour unless you shift it a bit earlier Thanks Clara Pezuela Head of IT Sector Research and Innovation Group Atos Spain SA Clara.pezuela at atos.net +34 91 214 8609 +34 675 62 9974 [Atos_Olympic_Games_Logo_signature] From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: viernes, 15 de marzo de 2013 15:16 To: Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) dear miguel and all, i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear proposal. as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this will be our work. for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? otherwise we go for pownow. ciao, stefano 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo > Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: * D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D4.5.1 * D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) * D10.4.1 * D10.5.1 * D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 - Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 11614 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From mcp at tid.es Fri Mar 15 16:35:54 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:35:54 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected In-Reply-To: References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> <2E6842FF4FDB5A47B877C8CADB9D76FD014DCFA2@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: <51433FDA.6060301@tid.es> I will possibly not be able to join the call either way El 15/03/2013 16:26, stefano de panfilis escribi?: dear all, are you available at 16:00? please can anybody provide a phc bridge? ciao, stefano 2013/3/15 Clara M Pezuela Robles > Stefano, I have another confcall on Tuesday at 17:00, so I could only attend half an hour unless you shift it a bit earlier Thanks Clara Pezuela Head of IT Sector Research and Innovation Group Atos Spain SA Clara.pezuela at atos.net +34 91 214 8609 +34 675 62 9974 [Atos_Olympic_Games_Logo_signature] From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: viernes, 15 de marzo de 2013 15:16 To: Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) dear miguel and all, i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear proposal. as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this will be our work. for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? otherwise we go for pownow. ciao, stefano 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo > Dear all, Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing. Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain) Best regards, Miguel El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: Hi Thorsten, For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn?t require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: ?the next iterative version is due in the next review period. See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. =============================================== The following deliverables are rejected: ? D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) ? D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) ? D4.5.1 ? D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) ? D10.4.1 ? D10.5.1 ? D10.5.1 None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given. ====================================================== Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten Envoy? : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear colleagues, Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 ?means?? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here ? or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :( So what do YOU think we should do? I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time. Best regards, /Thorsten D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Dear partners, I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. I'll come to this after I read it carefully. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , Dear Mr Hierro, Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Many thanks in advance Best regards, Vanessa Vanhumbeeck European Commission DG CONNECT Unit E3 ? Net Innovation Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 11614 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 18 08:49:39 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:49:39 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB3158@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear WPL/WPA, This is to make you all aware and start the discussion on one of the parts of the Review report concerning the validation topic (10.5.X). Status: - D.10.5.1 (validation report) was rejected (as attached below) and they expect a resolved version of the validation report (and major changes) for M24 (already end of April). - Main point from the reviewers: validation report does not met the expectations set by the DoW. 1. UC requirements are not linked to the validation (Personal assumption: ... as these requirements are not fully recorded in the first place, it is almost impossible to resolve this ) 2. Non-functional capabilities are not part of the presented evaluation approach - This can't be resolved on the testbed-level, we have to start the resolution and discussion on the WPL/WPA level My personal opinion to the matter: - The validation process was aligned between the UC and FI-WARE and was part of an official AB-resolution - The requirement matrix can't be established, as we do not have a concise list of requirements by the UCs - For the non-functional capabilities we need to come up with a new approach currently I don't know have a good idea on how to approach this - do you have any other agile processes where non-functional capabilities are part of the validation? Our (quiet obvious) options for 1. (UC requirement links) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and try to intro a link between the "requirements"/"feature"-list and the UC validation (if we take "FEATURES": I personally won't know who would really be able to judge if a feature is really present in a given GE and given the high amount of "FEATURES" in our wikis, this would be a hard job... ) (if we take "requirements": we would firstly need to consolidate and aggregate a list of requirements - who would be able to input here, as the UC projects in phase 1 are probably not responsive any more and the UC2 are just starting ) II. Convince the reviewers that the AB board decision overrules the DoW (potentially and just-to-be-sure: this should be communicated before the next review and potentially clarified with the PO) (potentially this should be reflected in one upcoming amendment of the DoW) III. ... < your options go here > :) Our (quiet obvious) options for 2. (non-functional capabilities) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and introduce a new process on how to validate non-functional capabilities of GEs or the platform in a whole (Who can contribute here?) II. ... < your options go here > :) Unfortunately I won't be able to join the next WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if you would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic. Thanks for any feedback and input and best regards, /Thorsten Attachement: D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manieri at eng.it Fri Mar 15 15:43:20 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:43:20 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected In-Reply-To: References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FABBC7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <2512_1363100042_513F4185_2512_71_27_35136584-0162-4fe8-b5ac-2d667ff1e7d9@THSONEA01HUB04P.one.grp> <5140B846.3020509@tid.es> Message-ID: <51433388.7070005@eng.it> Dear Stefano, All, Tue 16.30 doesn't work for me, I already have another engagement with my management. Thanks for considering another date/slot A. Il 15/03/2013 15:16, stefano de panfilis ha scritto: > dear miguel and all, > > i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the > attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. > there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we > need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a > clear proposal. > > as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i > think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been > produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort > not just fi-ware. > certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this > will be our work. > > for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to > postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. > > the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for > numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? > otherwise we go for pownow. > > ciao, > stefano > > > 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo > > > Dear all, > > Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed > but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should > have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to > resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with > something more convincing. > > Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least > taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically > complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is > strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is > clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. > The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now > we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We > need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level > (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday > in Spain) > > Best regards, > > Miguel > > El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribi?: >> >> Hi Thorsten, >> >> For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission >> simply because as stated in the review report: "the next >> iterative version is due in the next review period. >> >> See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report. >> >> =============================================== >> >> The following deliverables are rejected: >> >> ? D2.4.1b (being a re-submission) >> >> ? D4.1.1b (being a re-submission) >> >> ? D4.5.1 >> >> ? D5.1.1b (being a re-submission) >> >> ? D10.4.1 >> >> ? D10.5.1 >> >> ? D10.5.1 >> >> None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next >> iterative version is due in >> >> the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost >> assessments are given. >> >> ====================================================== >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Pascal >> >> *De :*fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> >> [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *De la part de* >> Sandfuchs, Thorsten >> *Envoy? :* mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21 >> *? :* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >> >> *Objet :* [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: >> [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & >> Review report) >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the >> Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, >> but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance >> on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). >> They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work >> carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not >> think that we have a major clinch here -- or do we? At least the >> reviewers leave it open L >> >> So what do YOU think we should do? >> >> I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this >> review-report for WP10 in due time. >> >> Best regards, >> >> /Thorsten >> >> *D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with >> Use Case projects* >> >> This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation >> process for the use cases >> >> to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was >> initiate and send to the use >> >> case projects and the main findings are outlined. >> >> The validation process described in the document is generally >> well thought and detailed; >> >> however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of >> the FI-WARE project and >> >> FI-WARE Releases. >> >> The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view >> of what is envisaged in the >> >> DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and >> validation of the >> >> conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According >> to the deliverable, the >> >> design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been >> successfully >> >> communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. >> As the link between >> >> Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual >> chapters is not readily >> >> traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and >> the extent to which the Agile >> >> best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, >> there is no tight linkage >> >> between the defined requirements and the features provided by the >> GE providers. Hence, the >> >> validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a >> requirements matrix, but will >> >> follow an open questionnaire approach. The available >> questionnaire is presently basic, and is >> >> a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich >> the characterisation of Use >> >> Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and >> generally boost GE uptake. >> >> Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in >> relation to the non-functional >> >> capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the >> Technical Roadmap is yet to be >> >> described. >> >> Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, >> >> *From:*fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> >> [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of >> *Juanjo Hierro >> *Sent:* Dienstag, 12. M?rz 2013 12:14 >> *To:* fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu ; >> fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu ; >> fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu >> *Subject:* [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome >> Letter & Review report >> >> Dear partners, >> >> I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay. >> >> I'll come to this after I read it carefully. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- Juanjo >> >> >> >> >> ------------- >> 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) Coordinator >> and 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: * >> >> >> >> FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report >> >> *Date: * >> >> >> >> Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000 >> >> *From: * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *To: * >> >> >> >> >> >> *CC: * >> >> >> >> >> , >> , >> , >> , >> , >> , >> , >> >> >> Dear Mr Hierro, >> >> Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and >> review report of project 285248 FI-WARE. >> >> Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. >> >> Many thanks in advance >> >> Best regards, >> >> Vanessa Vanhumbeeck >> >> *European Commission* >> >> DG CONNECT >> >> Unit E3 -- Net Innovation >> >> Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39 >> Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> 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-testbed mailing list >> Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Tue Mar 19 13:19:23 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Message-ID: dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Tue Mar 19 14:25:59 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:25:59 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9046_1363699560_51486768_9046_17910_3_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E45E3EF8@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Thanks Stefano for yuor email on the topic. On my side I would suggest to maintain one this week so on Thursday please provide us with a doodle based on time slots you have available. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de stefano de panfilis Envoy? : mardi 19 mars 2013 13:19 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Tue Mar 19 19:12:59 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB5A3B@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Hi, There might be a valid third option for case 1 (UC requirements) to cater for UC1 projects only 1.III. Take every "Accpeted for inclusion for FIWARE backlog", "Already part of baseline asset" and "Covered by fi-ware backlog entries" ticket out of the DEPRECATED tracker of feature-requests: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/tracker/?atid=163&group_id=7&func=browse - present this list as one part of the validation to the particular UC or all of them. - As attached that would be around 70 tickets As these fields do not exist in the chapter-specific trackers, this can't be applied to the new UCs right? What do you think? Please let me know if this topic gets into the WPL meeting today and when - I have an all-day event, which I can't Best, /Thorsten From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Montag, 18. M?rz 2013 08:50 To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear WPL/WPA, This is to make you all aware and start the discussion on one of the parts of the Review report concerning the validation topic (10.5.X). Status: - D.10.5.1 (validation report) was rejected (as attached below) and they expect a resolved version of the validation report (and major changes) for M24 (already end of April). - Main point from the reviewers: validation report does not met the expectations set by the DoW. 1. UC requirements are not linked to the validation (Personal assumption: ... as these requirements are not fully recorded in the first place, it is almost impossible to resolve this ) 2. Non-functional capabilities are not part of the presented evaluation approach - This can't be resolved on the testbed-level, we have to start the resolution and discussion on the WPL/WPA level My personal opinion to the matter: - The validation process was aligned between the UC and FI-WARE and was part of an official AB-resolution - The requirement matrix can't be established, as we do not have a concise list of requirements by the UCs - For the non-functional capabilities we need to come up with a new approach currently I don't know have a good idea on how to approach this - do you have any other agile processes where non-functional capabilities are part of the validation? Our (quiet obvious) options for 1. (UC requirement links) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and try to intro a link between the "requirements"/"feature"-list and the UC validation (if we take "FEATURES": I personally won't know who would really be able to judge if a feature is really present in a given GE and given the high amount of "FEATURES" in our wikis, this would be a hard job... ) (if we take "requirements": we would firstly need to consolidate and aggregate a list of requirements - who would be able to input here, as the UC projects in phase 1 are probably not responsive any more and the UC2 are just starting ) II. Convince the reviewers that the AB board decision overrules the DoW (potentially and just-to-be-sure: this should be communicated before the next review and potentially clarified with the PO) (potentially this should be reflected in one upcoming amendment of the DoW) III. ... < your options go here > J Our (quiet obvious) options for 2. (non-functional capabilities) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and introduce a new process on how to validate non-functional capabilities of GEs or the platform in a whole (Who can contribute here?) II. ... < your options go here > J Unfortunately I won't be able to join the next WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if you would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic. Thanks for any feedback and input and best regards, /Thorsten Attachement: D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tracker_report-2013-03-19.csv Type: application/octet-stream Size: 52648 bytes Desc: tracker_report-2013-03-19.csv URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Tue Mar 19 19:24:09 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:24:09 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB5A3B@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB5A3B@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FB5BCD@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Ah nice - just discovered that this email didn't get out this morning and got delivered only "now" - so sorry for the delay - content wise it was mentioned in the WPL/WPA meeting. Comments as always still welcome... Best & sorry again for the "late" submission. /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Dienstag, 19. M?rz 2013 19:13 To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Hi, There might be a valid third option for case 1 (UC requirements) to cater for UC1 projects only 1.III. Take every "Accpeted for inclusion for FIWARE backlog", "Already part of baseline asset" and "Covered by fi-ware backlog entries" ticket out of the DEPRECATED tracker of feature-requests: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/tracker/?atid=163&group_id=7&func=browse - present this list as one part of the validation to the particular UC or all of them. - As attached that would be around 70 tickets As these fields do not exist in the chapter-specific trackers, this can't be applied to the new UCs right? What do you think? Please let me know if this topic gets into the WPL meeting today and when - I have an all-day event, which I can't Best, /Thorsten From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Montag, 18. M?rz 2013 08:50 To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report) Dear WPL/WPA, This is to make you all aware and start the discussion on one of the parts of the Review report concerning the validation topic (10.5.X). Status: - D.10.5.1 (validation report) was rejected (as attached below) and they expect a resolved version of the validation report (and major changes) for M24 (already end of April). - Main point from the reviewers: validation report does not met the expectations set by the DoW. 1. UC requirements are not linked to the validation (Personal assumption: ... as these requirements are not fully recorded in the first place, it is almost impossible to resolve this ) 2. Non-functional capabilities are not part of the presented evaluation approach - This can't be resolved on the testbed-level, we have to start the resolution and discussion on the WPL/WPA level My personal opinion to the matter: - The validation process was aligned between the UC and FI-WARE and was part of an official AB-resolution - The requirement matrix can't be established, as we do not have a concise list of requirements by the UCs - For the non-functional capabilities we need to come up with a new approach currently I don't know have a good idea on how to approach this - do you have any other agile processes where non-functional capabilities are part of the validation? Our (quiet obvious) options for 1. (UC requirement links) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and try to intro a link between the "requirements"/"feature"-list and the UC validation (if we take "FEATURES": I personally won't know who would really be able to judge if a feature is really present in a given GE and given the high amount of "FEATURES" in our wikis, this would be a hard job... ) (if we take "requirements": we would firstly need to consolidate and aggregate a list of requirements - who would be able to input here, as the UC projects in phase 1 are probably not responsive any more and the UC2 are just starting ) II. Convince the reviewers that the AB board decision overrules the DoW (potentially and just-to-be-sure: this should be communicated before the next review and potentially clarified with the PO) (potentially this should be reflected in one upcoming amendment of the DoW) III. ... < your options go here > :) Our (quiet obvious) options for 2. (non-functional capabilities) are: I. Give in to the reviewers and introduce a new process on how to validate non-functional capabilities of GEs or the platform in a whole (Who can contribute here?) II. ... < your options go here > :) Unfortunately I won't be able to join the next WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if you would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic. Thanks for any feedback and input and best regards, /Thorsten Attachement: D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required, -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Thu Mar 21 15:47:09 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:47:09 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: (Forward to attendees) Meeting invitation: FI-WARE WP10 PhC In-Reply-To: <1551128588.1363876766833.JavaMail.nobody@jln1wl201.webex.com> References: <1551128588.1363876766833.JavaMail.nobody@jln1wl201.webex.com> Message-ID: <514B1D6D.1040107@nsn.com> Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci -------- Original Message -------- Subject: (Forward to attendees) Meeting invitation: FI-WARE WP10 PhC Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:39:26 +0000 From: ext NemethL?r?nt Reply-To: To: **** You can forward this email invitation to attendees **** Hello , NemethL?r?nt invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: FI-WARE WP10 PhC Date: Every Monday, from Monday, 25 March 2013 to no end date Time: 15:00, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) Meeting Number: 704 335 226 Meeting Password: wp10 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&RT=MTgjMjU%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: wp10 4. Click "Join Now". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&ORT=MTgjMjU%3D ------------------------------------------------------- To join the teleconference only ------------------------------------------------------- https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Conference code: 2210382800 ------------------------------------------------------- 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.nemeth at nsn.com To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=0dXg3Krea6u0ZYPjLNi6hGTX2IurPHwy01VwJytyE2I=&RT=MTgjMjU%3D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 22 00:55:15 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:55:15 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [FI-PPP AB] SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <0CF527EE434D2E4BB398B0F67FB0A8983254D3D78D@xchg.mertree.mer.co.il> References: <0CF527EE434D2E4BB398B0F67FB0A8983254D3D78D@xchg.mertree.mer.co.il> Message-ID: dear thorsten and all, here is another validation questionnaire. as safecity was the project which made real pocs (arlanda and madrid) this questionnaire has an intrinsic extremely high value. ciao, stefano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peretz Gurel Date: 2013/3/21 Subject: [FI-PPP AB] SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire To: "stefano de panfilis (stefano.depanfilis at eng.it)" < stefano.depanfilis at eng.it> Cc: "ab at fi-ppp.eu" Dear Stefano,**** Attached is *SafeCity FIWARE test bed questionnaire* based on our experience with several GEs.**** ** ** Note that in answering QE.13 "How deep did you analyse the GE" everyone answered "OAS - OpenAPI Specification" as this is the highest level provided in the questionaire. However, I would like to stress that the answers are based on actual usage of the GEs and integrating them in our SE code (that was tested in real operational scenarios), not just on mere theoretical analysis of the specifications.**** ** ** Best regards,**** ** ** *Peretz Gurel* European Projects Manager**** Athena security implementations Ltd**** Office: +972-3-5572548**** Mobile: +972-54-4734045**** Email: peretz at athenaiss.com **** www.athenaiss.com **** ** ** _______________________________________________ Ab mailing list Ab at fi-ppp.eu http://lists.fi-ppp.eu/mailman/listinfo/ab -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v6.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 37985 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Mar 22 15:20:33 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:20:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week In-Reply-To: <514C577F.5030800@tid.es> References: <514C278D.3050306@tid.es> <514C577F.5030800@tid.es> Message-ID: dear thorsten and axel, i do not know who of you'll be there. please find attached the presentation i did at the last ab from where you can start rolling the ball for the validation part. of course i can do that presentation if you wish. ciao, stefano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Juanjo Hierro Date: 2013/3/22 Subject: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week To: "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , " fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" FYI, the agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week. Please take care of the particular parts of the presentations you have to cover during the first two days: - WP10 (Testbed) team: prepare the presentation on "FI-WARE Testbed" planned on April 2, from 14:30 to 15:00 - Be pragmatic, focus on how to get access to the testbed, how to create accounts, gain access, etc - You don't need to go into the details about Cloud capabilities because they will described on April 3 - WP9 (Tools) team: prepare presentation regarding "FI-WARE Training" planned on April 2, from 15:00 to 15:30 - Give a view on how we plan the training sessions (live webinars, recording sessions, etc). I understand we cannot be too precise here, because it is work still under development, but I guess it would be nice to explain the approach and the goals we are looking for - Explain when we plan the live webinars to take place and how we will organize subscription to the webinars. We can discuss this off-line, but I would go for a similar approach to the one followed for the webinars of the 1st Release of FI-WARE. - WP10 (Testbed) team, SAP: prepare the presentation on "FI-WARE validation by UC projects": - Explain the current validation process (including rationale: we agreed in the AB not to make this a heavy-duty process) - Call for feedback from new UC projects about enhancements they may believe would be nice to introduce in the process - All WPLs: I understand that everything is clear regarding assignment of responsibilites for the items in the agenda of the second day. Please also take a look to the notes that were inserted in the minutes of our last WPLs/WPAs confcall where I provided some more details/insights. Hope this all helps to start rolling-out the ball. I will be on holidays next week but will connect from time (although I'll be in NY and therefore there will be 6 hours of difference). Let's keep the discussion open during these days. The regular monday WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next monday March 25 will take place and Miguel will chair it. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: Agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:42:37 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: Lakaniemi Ilkka , Cecchi Maurizio , Sjaak Wolfert , Williams Fiona , Fourdeaux Henri , "rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com" , "sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com" , Christoph Thuemmler , Van Der Linden Pieter , Anastasius Gavras CC: Fatelnig Peter , "Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu" , "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" , "Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu" , David Kennedy , "FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu" , Turkama Petra , Salo Juha , Schaffers Hans , Thomas Michael Bohnert , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" Dear all, You can find a draft agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week at the following link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqGGeaQGro3fdE4teWs4UEpZa29zd0FRUmNTaFdxT2c&usp=sharing Thanks to Thomas M. Bohnert for his feedback and help finalizing it. We would like to hear your input, regarding what is the day where we can co-llocate the workshop dealing with your UC Trial project. Based on an initial request, we have placed cSpace in the workshop colocated in April 3. Please send your proposals to Thomas and me so that we can come with a final proposal. Please take into account that we have to meet a compromise, so we hope you can trust we will make a reasonable proposal. We may come back to you with more details about what info we are asking you to provide in the workshops dedicated to UC projects. We are discussing with Xifi what can be specific requests about info we would love to hear from you. Best 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) Coordinator and 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 On 14/03/13 06:57, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear all, This mail is to announce that the FI-PPP Architecture Week for Phase 2 will take place in the following venue: Aula Magna in Building "A" School of Telecommunication Engineering (ETS Ingenieros de Telecomunicacion - ETSIT) Avenida Complutense # 30 University City 28040 Madrid Directions and hotels close to the venue can be found at: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?client=tmpg&depth=1&hl=en&langpair=es%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&u=http://www.etsit.upm.es/la-escuela/como-llegar.html%3FL%3Dttqltguphtgolkug&usg=ALkJrhi775kjxa4XFzatOQMya9dkNbh5wg Maps of the buildings associated to the ETSIT: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?client=tmpg&depth=1&hl=en&langpair=es%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&u=http://www.etsit.upm.es/la-escuela/etsi-de-telecomunicacion/etsit-edificios.html&usg=ALkJrhi0WiJVR4jcJKDRa0prunRkZbTCig We had received many request to allow more than two people attending on behalf of phase 2 projects to the Architecture Week that will take place in Madrid, during April 2-5, that's why we have been late announcing the venue. Actually, the original venues were at a different location, but the meeting room was limited to 28-30 people maximum. Please note that coffee and lunch breaks will be scheduled during the week, but each attendee has to cover its own expenses. There is a restaurant and coffee bar in the same building of the venue with convenient prices. Note also that it might take a while to go from the University to the Airport, first walking to the metro stop "Ciudad Universitaria" (aprox. 1 Km) and then taking the metro to the Airport (you should take line 6 until "Nuevos Ministerios" and then line 8). You should take this into consideration when arranging the time of your return fligths on Friday. I will come later this week with a more detailed agenda, but the one already sent to you (see mail below) should be enough as far as logistics is concerned. Best 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) Coordinator and 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 On 20/02/13 05:01, Lakaniemi Ilkka wrote: Dear all, As indicated yesterday, please find more detailed info about the FI-PPP Architecture Week on 2-5 April in Madrid. For any further details and info, please be in touch with Juanjo, Thomas B and me. The agenda of this meeting (draft): - April 2 (starting at 11:00am): FI-WARE to provide a thorough introduction on FI-WARE scope, goals, basic concepts, methodology, planning, available documentation, resources, tools, etc as well as a detailed description of the way the FI-PPP AB works. - April 3 morning: FI-WARE to provide detailed info about the FI-WARE Second Release, training planning, etc. - April 3 afternoon until April 5 17:00 CET: sequence of half-days workshops per UC Trial projects where UC Trials will present a sketch of their envisioned architecture, their current plans regarding usage of FI-WARE GEs, needs regarding setup of their trials, questions on which they need responses, etc. FI-WARE will provide feedback during these workshops that will help UC projects to program their planning of activities taking the most of FI-WARE. Note from FI-WARE: Technical managers/architects from UC Trial projects that are continuation of Phase 1 UC projects may skip the first day (i.e., people already engaged in phase 1 and part of the FI-PPP AB already). The rest of days will be mandatory for all UC Trial projects as well as FI-WARE and Xifi. People engaged in the FI-PPP for their first time must also attend the first day. It is expected that 2, maximum 3 people per project will attend. They should play a technical role in their project. Ideally, two of them should be the ones being appointed as members of the FI-PPP AB. Kind regards, Ilkka and Juanjo ------------------------------ 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-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE_WP10_FI-PPP-AB_20130206.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 2940561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrea.manieri at eng.it Fri Mar 22 15:43:15 2013 From: Andrea.manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:43:15 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week In-Reply-To: References: <514C278D.3050306@tid.es> <514C577F.5030800@tid.es> Message-ID: <2031336656-1363963459-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-143350954-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> Dear Juanjo, May I ask you why as per the Wp9 presentation we should focus only on the webinars and not introducing also the tools? Thanks for clarifying, A Andrea Manieri -----Original Message----- From: stefano de panfilis Sender: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:20:33 To: Thorsten Sandfuchs; Fasse, Axel Cc: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed From andrea.manieri at gmail.com Tue Mar 19 13:23:32 2013 From: andrea.manieri at gmail.com (andrea.manieri at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:23:32 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1250701107-1363695879-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-410119563-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> Both options are fine with me. A Andrea Manieri -----Original Message----- From: stefano de panfilis Sender: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed From jhierro at tid.es Sat Mar 23 03:11:16 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 03:11:16 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Agenda of the FI-PPP Architects Week In-Reply-To: <2031336656-1363963459-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-143350954-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> References: <514C278D.3050306@tid.es> <514C577F.5030800@tid.es> <2031336656-1363963459-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-143350954-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <514D0F44.2020504@tid.es> You have a whole session of 30 mins for the FI-CoDE on the second day ! Also right after the Cloud session as requested by Davide during the joint WPLs/WPAs confcall. Please note that the spreadsheet has several sheets ! Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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 On 22/03/13 15:43, Andrea Manieri wrote: > Dear Juanjo, > > May I ask you why as per the Wp9 presentation we should focus only on the webinars and not introducing also the tools? > > Thanks for clarifying, > > A > > Andrea Manieri > > -----Original Message----- > From: stefano de panfilis > Sender: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:20:33 > To: Thorsten Sandfuchs; Fasse, Axel > Cc: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: Agenda of the FI-PPP > Architects Week > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > . > ________________________________ 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 thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 09:03:42 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:03:42 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [FI-PPP AB] SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <0CF527EE434D2E4BB398B0F67FB0A8983254D3D78D@xchg.mertree.mer.co.il> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCE098@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Hi Stefano, Thanks for forwarding this. Will there be the docx-version of the answers to the scenarios as well? Same goes for the others - I think FINEST did a very good job in compiling the relevant information and they managed to fill out the doc and generate a pdf out of it... This is how I see the current status & the responses we got so far. Please let me know if I'm missing someone or my list is somewhat wrong... STATUS: GREEN FINEST: [x] xls-based questionnaire, [x] scenario questions doc STATUS: YELLOW SMARTCITY: [x] xls-based questionnaire, [MISSING] scenario questions doc INSTANT_MOBILTIY: [x] xls-based questionnaire, [MISSING] scenario questions doc SMART_AGRIFOOD: [x] xls-based questionnaire, [MISSING] scenario questions doc STATUS: RED FINSENY: [MISSING] xls-based questionnaire, [MISSING] scenario questions doc OUTSMART: [MISSING] xls-based questionnaire, [MISSING] scenario questions doc For your convenience I attached the relevant doc which they have to fill out again. Best, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Freitag, 22. M?rz 2013 00:55 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [FI-PPP AB] SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire dear thorsten and all, here is another validation questionnaire. as safecity was the project which made real pocs (arlanda and madrid) this questionnaire has an intrinsic extremely high value. ciao, stefano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peretz Gurel > Date: 2013/3/21 Subject: [FI-PPP AB] SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire To: "stefano de panfilis (stefano.depanfilis at eng.it)" > Cc: "ab at fi-ppp.eu" > Dear Stefano, Attached is SafeCity FIWARE test bed questionnaire based on our experience with several GEs. Note that in answering QE.13 "How deep did you analyse the GE" everyone answered "OAS - OpenAPI Specification" as this is the highest level provided in the questionaire. However, I would like to stress that the answers are based on actual usage of the GEs and integrating them in our SE code (that was tested in real operational scenarios), not just on mere theoretical analysis of the specifications. Best regards, Peretz Gurel European Projects Manager Athena security implementations Ltd Office: +972-3-5572548 Mobile: +972-54-4734045 Email: peretz at athenaiss.com www.athenaiss.com _______________________________________________ Ab mailing list Ab at fi-ppp.eu http://lists.fi-ppp.eu/mailman/listinfo/ab -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-01-Validation_process_template_for_use_case_projects_v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 474802 bytes Desc: 2013-01-Validation_process_template_for_use_case_projects_v2.docx URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 10:06:03 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:06:03 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Feedback by UC projects on your GE: FInest Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCE2ED@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear GE-providers, Please find attached the feedback, gathered from one of the (phase 1) use case projects in relation to your GE provided through the WP10/Testbed workpackage to you. Please forward this information to people I might have forgotten on the list. As you probably know, the UC projects are currently following a validation process, defined within https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/D.10.5.1.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page They expressed their opinion with the help of the attached xls-table and within a PDF document in relation to the questioned asked. No it is your turn - use the feedback to refine your requirements and components or approach the use case projects directly and gather perhaps some quotes or to position your component within the rest of the project lifetime. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-03-GE_Validation_FINEST-v1.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 37647 bytes Desc: 2013-03-GE_Validation_FINEST-v1.xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-03-GE_Validation_FINEST-v1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 380056 bytes Desc: 2013-03-GE_Validation_FINEST-v1.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 10:15:46 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:15:46 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Feedback by UC projects on your GE: SAFECITY Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCE38E@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear GE-providers, Please find attached the feedback, gathered from one of the (phase 1) use case projects in relation to your GE provided through the WP10/Testbed workpackage to you. Please forward this information to people I might have forgotten on the list. As you probably know, the UC projects are currently following a validation process, defined within https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/D.10.5.1.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page They expressed their opinion with the help of the attached xls-table. No it is your turn - use the feedback to refine your requirements and components or approach the use case projects directly and gather perhaps some quotes or to position your component within the rest of the project lifetime. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. As safecity was the project which made real pocs (arlanda and madrid) this questionnaire has an intrinsic extremely high value. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v6.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 37985 bytes Desc: SAFECITY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v6.xlsx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From mcp at tid.es Mon Mar 25 13:08:45 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:08:45 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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 -------------- _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 13:59:35 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:59:35 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> As announced I can only join from 17:00, iff at all - as for the usual clashing meeting that I announced from the beginning. Best, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 13:09 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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.nemeth at nsn.com Mon Mar 25 14:11:31 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:11:31 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> Hi, sorry, but now I'm really lost when and if we're going to have a meeting (my understanding was 15:00 today based on some mail earlier). Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 01:59 PM, ext Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote: > > As announced I can only join from 17:00, iff at all - as for the usual > clashing meeting that I announced from the beginning. > > Best, > > /Thorsten > > *From:*fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *Miguel > Carrillo > *Sent:* Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 13:09 > *To:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week > > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. > > Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. > Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility > (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... > > /Hi, > > I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External > numbers can be seen here: > //https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/// > > > Br, > Loci/ > > Best regards > > Miguel > > -------- Mensaje original -------- > > *Asunto: * > > > > [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week > > *Fecha: * > > > > Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 > > *De: * > > > > stefano de panfilis > > > *Para: * > > > > fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > > > dear all, > > i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. > > at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson > effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. > > in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw > procurement process at red.es > > apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. > tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase > 2 uc projects) kom. > > we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. > > of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation > is really mandatory to that one. > > shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? > > answers by now please ..... > > ciao, > > stefano > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Mon Mar 25 14:23:48 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:23:48 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> Message-ID: <51504FE4.7070702@tid.es> This is all I know (enclosed) My message was a mix of a reminder and a request for confirmation to Stefano... El 25/03/2013 14:11, Lorant Nemeth escribi?: Hi, sorry, but now I'm really lost when and if we're going to have a meeting (my understanding was 15:00 today based on some mail earlier). Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 01:59 PM, ext Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote: As announced I can only join from 17:00, iff at all - as for the usual clashing meeting that I announced from the beginning. Best, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 13:09 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: stefano de panfilis Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 Size: 7333 URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Mar 25 14:44:34 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:44:34 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> Message-ID: dear all, for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at the moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be agrred. ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. > > Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci > kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for > that) - I copy the text ... > > *Hi,** > **** > **I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External > numbers can be seen here:** > ****https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/** > **** > **** > ****Br,** > ** Loci* > > Best regards > > Miguel > > -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for > this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de > panfilis Para: > fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > > dear all, > > i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. > at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson > effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. > in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw > procurement process at red.es > > apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. > tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc > projects) kom. > > we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. > of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is > really mandatory to that one. > > shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? > answers by now please ..... > > ciao, > stefano > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Mar 25 15:03:44 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:03:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> Message-ID: dear lorant, thank you for your kindness. is it possible to re-arrange the meeting today at 17:00? if not please let me know that i'll look for another solution. thank you in advance stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, > > sorry, but now I'm really lost when and if we're going to have a meeting > (my understanding was 15:00 today based on some mail earlier). > > Br, > Loci > > > > On 03/25/2013 01:59 PM, ext Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote: > > As announced I can only join from 17:00, iff at all - as for the usual > clashing meeting that I announced from the beginning.**** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > /Thorsten**** > > ** ** > > *From:* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] > *On Behalf Of *Miguel Carrillo > *Sent:* Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 13:09 > *To:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week**** > > ** ** > > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. > > Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci > kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for > that) - I copy the text ... **** > > *Hi, > > I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External > numbers can be seen here: > **https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/** > > > Br, > Loci***** > > Best regards > > Miguel > > -------- Mensaje original -------- **** > > *Asunto: * > > [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week**** > > *Fecha: * > > Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100**** > > *De: * > > stefano de panfilis > **** > > *Para: * > > fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > **** > > ** ** > > dear all,**** > > i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc.**** > > at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort > we do have also the issue of d10.5.1.**** > > in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement > process at red.es**** > > ** ** > > apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. > tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc > projects) kom.**** > > we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me.**** > > of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is > really mandatory to that one.**** > > shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30?**** > > answers by now please .....**** > > ciao,**** > > stefano > **** > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > > 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-testbed mailing listFiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.euhttps://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > -- > L?r?nt N?meth > R&D Team Leader > Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization > > Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. > H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. > Mobile: +36209849340 > Fax: +3612154766 > lorant.nemeth at nsn.comhttp://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ > > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Mon Mar 25 15:23:48 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:23:48 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> Message-ID: <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> Hi, at 17:00 today I'll no be able to join due to an overlapping meeting. The conf facilities should work even without me. Please check and let me know in advance if you face any problem with it. Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 02:44 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: > dear all, > > for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at > the moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. > > in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be > agrred. > > ciao, > stefano > > > 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo > > > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at > 16:30 CET. > > Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. > Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility > (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... > > /Hi,// > // > //I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. > External numbers can be seen here:// > //https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/// > // > // > //Br,// > // Loci/ > > Best regards > > Miguel > > -------- Mensaje original -------- > Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week > Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 > De: stefano de panfilis > > Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > > > > > > dear all, > > i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. > at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the > ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. > in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw > procurement process at red.es > > apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. > tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the > phase 2 uc projects) kom. > > we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. > of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but > participation is really mandatory to that one. > > shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? > answers by now please ..... > > ciao, > stefano > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Mar 25 16:23:27 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:23:27 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> Message-ID: dear lorant, thank you very much! the phc is confirmed for today at 17:00 (in 30 min ...) ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, > > at 17:00 today I'll no be able to join due to an overlapping meeting. The > conf facilities should work even without me. Please check and let me know > in advance if you face any problem with it. > > Br, > Loci > > > > On 03/25/2013 02:44 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: > > dear all, > > for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at the > moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. > > in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be > agrred. > > ciao, > stefano > > > 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo > >> I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. >> >> Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci >> kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for >> that) - I copy the text ... >> >> *Hi,** >> ** >> **I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External >> numbers can be seen here:** >> **https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/** >> ** >> ** >> **Br,** >> ** Loci* >> >> Best regards >> >> Miguel >> >> -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc >> for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de >> panfilis Para: >> fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >> >> >> dear all, >> >> i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. >> at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson >> effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. >> in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw >> procurement process at red.es >> >> apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. >> tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 >> uc projects) kom. >> >> we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. >> of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is >> really mandatory to that one. >> >> shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? >> answers by now please ..... >> >> ciao, >> stefano >> >> -- >> Stefano De Panfilis >> Chief Innovation Officer >> Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. >> via Riccardo Morandi 32 >> 00148 Roma >> Italy >> >> tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 >> tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 >> fax: +39-068307-4200 >> cell: +39-335-7542-567 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing listFiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.euhttps://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > -- > L?r?nt N?meth > R&D Team Leader > Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization > > Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. > H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. > Mobile: +36209849340 > Fax: +3612154766 > lorant.nemeth at nsn.comhttp://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ > > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Mon Mar 25 17:05:14 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:05:14 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> Message-ID: <515075BA.9080508@tid.es> Lorant In case there are doubts, I guess that the Meeting Number is still 704 335 226, right? El 25/03/2013 16:23, stefano de panfilis escribi?: dear lorant, thank you very much! the phc is confirmed for today at 17:00 (in 30 min ...) ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, at 17:00 today I'll no be able to join due to an overlapping meeting. The conf facilities should work even without me. Please check and let me know in advance if you face any problem with it. Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 02:44 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: dear all, for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at the moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be agrred. ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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 -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 henk.heijnen at technicolor.com Mon Mar 25 17:03:03 2013 From: henk.heijnen at technicolor.com (Heijnen Henk) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:03:03 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> Message-ID: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C76DE965@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> No one on line ??? (the system says "the leader has not yet arrived" ...) Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE297A.9CDB26C0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE297A.9CDB26C0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: lundi 25 mars 2013 16:23 To: Lorant Nemeth Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week dear lorant, thank you very much! the phc is confirmed for today at 17:00 (in 30 min ...) ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, at 17:00 today I'll no be able to join due to an overlapping meeting. The conf facilities should work even without me. Please check and let me know in advance if you face any problem with it. Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 02:44 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: dear all, for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at the moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be agrred. ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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 -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From henk.heijnen at technicolor.com Mon Mar 25 17:04:00 2013 From: henk.heijnen at technicolor.com (Heijnen Henk) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:04:00 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <5175AF93A32E1948901991BA54F57DA802948234AE@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> <5175AF93A32E1948901991BA54F57DA802948234AE@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Message-ID: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C76DE96A@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> It works !!! Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE297A.BEC1BD80] [cid:image002.png at 01CE297A.BEC1BD80] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: Heijnen Henk Sent: lundi 25 mars 2013 17:03 To: 'stefano de panfilis'; Lorant Nemeth Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: RE: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week No one on line ??? (the system says "the leader has not yet arrived" ...) Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE297A.BEC1BD80] [cid:image002.png at 01CE297A.BEC1BD80] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: lundi 25 mars 2013 16:23 To: Lorant Nemeth Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week dear lorant, thank you very much! the phc is confirmed for today at 17:00 (in 30 min ...) ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, at 17:00 today I'll no be able to join due to an overlapping meeting. The conf facilities should work even without me. Please check and let me know in advance if you face any problem with it. Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 02:44 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: dear all, for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at the moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be agrred. ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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 -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 17:06:06 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:06:06 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF1BE@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> The meetingcode down below seems to be not accepted ? please advise on how to join the meeting Android format (germany): tel:+4989515920000;704335226# **** You can forward this email invitation to attendees **** Hello , NemethL?r?nt invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: FI-WARE WP10 PhC Date: Every Monday, from Monday, 25 March 2013 to no end date Time: 15:00, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) Meeting Number: 704 335 226 Meeting Password: wp10 -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! From: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Sent: Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 15:04 To: Lorant Nemeth Cc: Sandfuchs, Thorsten; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week dear lorant, thank you for your kindness. is it possible to re-arrange the meeting today at 17:00? if not please let me know that i'll look for another solution. thank you in advance stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, sorry, but now I'm really lost when and if we're going to have a meeting (my understanding was 15:00 today based on some mail earlier). Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 01:59 PM, ext Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote: As announced I can only join from 17:00, iff at all - as for the usual clashing meeting that I announced from the beginning. Best, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 13:09 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clara.pezuela at atosresearch.eu Mon Mar 25 17:06:39 2013 From: clara.pezuela at atosresearch.eu (Clara M Pezuela Robles) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:06:39 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <515075BA.9080508@tid.es> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <51505DF4.1040509@nsn.com> <515075BA.9080508@tid.es> Message-ID: <2E6842FF4FDB5A47B877C8CADB9D76FD01530DB0@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> No, it is one 2210382800 Clara Pezuela Head of IT Sector Research and Innovation Group Atos Spain SA Clara.pezuela at atos.net +34 91 214 8609 +34 675 62 9974 From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo Sent: lunes, 25 de marzo de 2013 17:05 To: stefano de panfilis Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Lorant In case there are doubts, I guess that the Meeting Number is still 704 335 226, right? El 25/03/2013 16:23, stefano de panfilis escribi?: dear lorant, thank you very much! the phc is confirmed for today at 17:00 (in 30 min ...) ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth Hi, at 17:00 today I'll no be able to join due to an overlapping meeting. The conf facilities should work even without me. Please check and let me know in advance if you face any problem with it. Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 02:44 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: dear all, for sure yes we will have weekly phc today. since the major issue at the moment is d10.5.1, the phc is delayed at 17:00 to accomodate thorsten. in the meanwhile i prepare a doodle to chose another time-slot to be agrred. ciao, stefano 2013/3/25 Miguel Carrillo I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at 16:30 CET. Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... Hi, I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. External numbers can be seen here: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ Br, Loci Best regards Miguel -------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week Fecha: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 De: stefano de panfilis Para: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu dear all, i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw procurement process at red.es apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the phase 2 uc projects) kom. we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but participation is really mandatory to that one. shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? answers by now please ..... ciao, stefano -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ 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 -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 11614 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 17:28:56 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:28:56 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] 10.5.1 report on validation process - current status for our concall Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF302@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, For the ongoing concall I send you the reference and needed background information. Best, /Thorsten Expert out of the 4th review report (written by the reviewers): D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. WPL meeting suggestions (2013-03-19 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15UOA2B7ot6FmNDXT1CmU5j_n9KiLl0BMksiymyhuGUQ/edit?pli=1#heading=h.ljewxe7eq5s4 ): Our observations should rely on the fact that the validation process was agreed at the AB level, which is defined as the top technical governance body. Therefore, decisions at that level overrule whatever is in the DoW. We may revisit the validation process with the new projects, and therefore constituency of the AB, but amendments of the process will only apply to second version of this deliverable, matching FI-WARE Release 2. -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Mon Mar 25 18:10:11 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:10:11 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF1BE@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <51503E4D.7070604@tid.es> <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCEBFB@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <51504D03.7040304@nsn.com> <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF1BE@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <515084F3.4080303@nsn.com> Hi, sorry from 5 I've been on a meeting and did not read mails. I hope you've been able to get it working. I guess it's too late, but: These are the credentials for the screenshare (webex): Meeting Number: 704 335 226 Meeting Password: wp10 While for the phone conf you'll need this ID: 2210382800 Br, Loci On 03/25/2013 05:06 PM, ext Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote: > > The meetingcode down below seems to be not accepted ? please advise on > how to join the meeting > > Android format (germany): tel:+4989515920000;704335226# > > > > > **** You can forward this email invitation to attendees **** > > Hello , > > NemethL?r?nt invites you to attend this online meeting. > > Topic: FI-WARE WP10 PhC > Date: Every Monday, from Monday, 25 March 2013 to no end date > Time: 15:00, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) > Meeting Number: 704 335 226 > Meeting Password: wp10 > > -- > > Thorsten Sandfuchs > > SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | > www.sap.com > > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: > http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx > > Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige > vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail > irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, > eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich > untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die > empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. > > This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or > otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail > in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or > distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us > immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > Please consider the environment before printing this mail! > > *From:*stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] > *Sent:* Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 15:04 > *To:* Lorant Nemeth > *Cc:* Sandfuchs, Thorsten; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week > > dear lorant, > > thank you for your kindness. is it possible to re-arrange the meeting > today at 17:00? > > if not please let me know that i'll look for another solution. > > thank you in advance > > stefano > > 2013/3/25 Lorant Nemeth > > > Hi, > > sorry, but now I'm really lost when and if we're going to have a > meeting (my understanding was 15:00 today based on some mail earlier). > > Br, > Loci > > > > On 03/25/2013 01:59 PM, ext Sandfuchs, Thorsten wrote: > > As announced I can only join from 17:00, iff at all - as for the > usual clashing meeting that I announced from the beginning. > > Best, > > /Thorsten > > *From:*fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > > [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of > *Miguel Carrillo > *Sent:* Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 13:09 > *To:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > *Subject:* [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc for this week > > I guess this is still the case and we have a meeting today at > 16:30 CET. > > Also, I checked and my poor memory was right for once in my life. > Loci kindly provided the details for a multiconference facility > (thanks for that) - I copy the text ... > > /Hi, > > I created a permanent reservation for Webex and phone conf. > External numbers can be seen here: > //https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ > > > Br, > Loci/ > > Best regards > > Miguel > > -------- Mensaje original -------- > > *Asunto: * > > > > [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc for this week > > *Fecha: * > > > > Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:19:23 +0100 > > *De: * > > > > stefano de panfilis > > > *Para: * > > > > fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > > > > dear all, > > i'm bit puzzled with the way we are not able to have our weekly phc. > > at this point in time in addition to redistribution of the > ericsson effort we do have also the issue of d10.5.1. > > in addition to know how things are progressing with the new hw > procurement process at red.es > > apparently today due to cross unavailability the call is impossible. > tomorrow i have to represent fi-ware at the finesce (one of the > phase 2 uc projects) kom. > > we can have it thursday in the afternon whatever time for me. > > of course otherwise we will have it on next monday, but > participation is really mandatory to that one. > > shall we go directly to monday 25th mar at 16:30? > > answers by now please ..... > > ciao, > > stefano > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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-testbed mailing list > > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > > -- > L?r?nt N?meth > R&D Team Leader > Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization > > Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. > H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. > Mobile:+36209849340 > Fax:+3612154766 > > lorant.nemeth at nsn.com > http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ > > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > > -- > Stefano De Panfilis > Chief Innovation Officer > Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. > via Riccardo Morandi 32 > 00148 Roma > Italy > > tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 > tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 > fax: +39-068307-4200 > cell: +39-335-7542-567 > -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Mar 25 18:16:33 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:16:33 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] 10.5.1 report on validation process - current status for our concall In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF302@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF302@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FCF433@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Additional information on the tracker, mentioned and the backlog deliverable: - Backlog: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/1894/Backlog+20130301.xlsm - Take every "Accpeted for inclusion for FIWARE backlog", "Already part of baseline asset" and "Covered by fi-ware backlog entries" ticket out of the DEPRECATED tracker of feature-requests: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/tracker/?atid=163&group_id=7&func=browse - present this list as one part of the validation to the particular UC or all of them. - As attached that would be around 70 tickets What do you think? From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Montag, 25. M?rz 2013 17:29 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] 10.5.1 report on validation process - current status for our concall Dear colleagues, For the ongoing concall I send you the reference and needed background information. Best, /Thorsten Expert out of the 4th review report (written by the reviewers): D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. WPL meeting suggestions (2013-03-19 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15UOA2B7ot6FmNDXT1CmU5j_n9KiLl0BMksiymyhuGUQ/edit?pli=1#heading=h.ljewxe7eq5s4 ): Our observations should rely on the fact that the validation process was agreed at the AB level, which is defined as the top technical governance body. Therefore, decisions at that level overrule whatever is in the DoW. We may revisit the validation process with the new projects, and therefore constituency of the AB, but amendments of the process will only apply to second version of this deliverable, matching FI-WARE Release 2. -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tracker_report-2013-03-19.csv Type: application/octet-stream Size: 52648 bytes Desc: tracker_report-2013-03-19.csv URL: From manieri at eng.it Tue Mar 26 19:40:29 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:40:29 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation In-Reply-To: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0A8382@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0A8382@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <5151EB9D.7010602@eng.it> Dear All, please provide to me your (one per partner) review of the effort-by-task allocation and task update, asap. Thanks in advance, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Data: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:59:09 +0000 Mittente: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: subsidies at tid.es Dear all. Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and modified if needed by each WPL. I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. *Please, each WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today*. Please review: Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) Description of each task. (word file) Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. BR Javier. *De:*JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu *CC:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *Asunto:* Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Hi all, A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification of further delays on the side of the Commission. If you believe that I should have added something in my response or you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: *** Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation *Date: *** Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 *From: *** Juanjo Hierro *To: *** *CC: *** , , , , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" Dear Arian, Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your message below ... On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Juanjo, *The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. * I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered by the grant agreement. I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts in the things they have decided to concentrate on). I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, imho, in achieveing good results. Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad on EU industry. The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be considered in a very first approach: * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been transferred to an academia partner: o Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able to commit to support this interface in their product for the 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an ETSI M2M implementation already rather than to be able to develop it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made us feel more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an Architecture which already considered support to the relevant ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from any industry partner in Europe so that's why. o Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. Second because they were committed to contribute their implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering the code of the Store as open source could be something that would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is open source so we expect this will call the attention of third parties. * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement FI-WARE GEs: o PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also committed to implement it as open source and that is also relevant to ensure sustainability. o When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. o Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more elaborated response can be provided if needed. Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) cannot be correct. We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an amendment of the DoW. Then, what is most important is *what happens with the contributions from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB.* Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson Composition Engine (ECE) What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson IoT Gateway In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not critical to find a replacement for the ECE. Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by NSN. Specific questions: 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and _will be involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!"_ Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its beginning, but in different WPs. 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, all of them are Thales ... Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the *Electronic-only signature and transmission of Form C *(see attachment)? Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Arian. PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the ones in the grant agreement??? -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es ; Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. Best 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) Coordinator and 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP10.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 97948 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Wed Mar 27 08:54:11 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:54:11 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation In-Reply-To: <5151EB9D.7010602@eng.it> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0A8382@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <5151EB9D.7010602@eng.it> Message-ID: Dear Andrea, the documents don?t require changes from TI side, I also verified that the inclusion of Uniroma1 is not requiring changes as they will contribute like all the other partners to T10.2 ?Integration? of their components (developed in WP7). BR Pier Da: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Andrea Manieri Inviato: marted? 26 marzo 2013 19:40 A: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Dear All, please provide to me your (one per partner) review of the effort-by-task allocation and task update, asap. Thanks in advance, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Data: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:59:09 +0000 Mittente: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: subsidies at tid.es Dear all. Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and modified if needed by each WPL. I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. Please, each WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today. Please review: Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) Description of each task. (word file) Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. BR Javier. De: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Enviado el: martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 Para: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Asunto: Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Hi all, A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification of further delays on the side of the Commission. If you believe that I should have added something in my response or you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: CC: , , , , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" Dear Arian, Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your message below ... On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Juanjo, The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered by the grant agreement. I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts in the things they have decided to concentrate on). I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, imho, in achieveing good results. Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad on EU industry. The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be considered in a very first approach: * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been transferred to an academia partner: * Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able to commit to support this interface in their product for the 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an ETSI M2M implementation already rather than to be able to develop it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made us feel more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an Architecture which already considered support to the relevant ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from any industry partner in Europe so that's why. * Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. Second because they were committed to contribute their implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering the code of the Store as open source could be something that would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is open source so we expect this will call the attention of third parties. * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement FI-WARE GEs: * PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also committed to implement it as open source and that is also relevant to ensure sustainability. * When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. * Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more elaborated response can be provided if needed. Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) cannot be correct. We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an amendment of the DoW. Then, what is most important is what happens with the contributions from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB. Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson Composition Engine (ECE) What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson IoT Gateway In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not critical to find a replacement for the ECE. Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by NSN. Specific questions: 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and will be involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!" Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its beginning, but in different WPs. 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, all of them are Thales ... Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the Electronic-only signature and transmission of Form C (see attachment)? Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Arian. PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the ones in the grant agreement??? -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es; Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. Best 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) Coordinator and 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 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:00000000000000000000000000000003 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_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Mar 27 12:29:18 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:29:18 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: FINSENY Validation In-Reply-To: <12C76B3C34B11F48831D509828BB88130512EB0D55@DEMCHP99E35MSX.ww902.siemens.net> References: <12C76B3C34B11F48831D509828BB88130512EB0D55@DEMCHP99E35MSX.ww902.siemens.net> Message-ID: dear thorsten, please find forwarded the finseny validation questionnaire filled. ciao, stefano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eger, Kolja Date: 2013/3/27 Subject: FINSENY Validation To: stefano de panfilis Cc: "ab at fi-ppp.eu" Dear Stefano, please find attached the feedback by the FINSNEY project on your questionnaire. Best regards, Kolja Mit freundlichen Gr??en Dr.Kolja Eger Siemens AG Corporate Technology CT RTC NEC INN-DE Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 M?nchen, Deutschland Tel: +49 89 636-42215 Fax: +49 89 636-41423 Mobile: +49 1525 7965430 *mailto:kolja.eger at siemens.com* Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gerhard Cromme; Vorstand: Peter L?scher, Vorsitzender; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Joe Kaeser, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael S??; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und M?nchen, Deutschland; Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, M?nchen, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322 -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-01-Validation_process_template_for_use_case_projects_v2_FINSENY_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 432443 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FINSENY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v3_FINSENY_20130327.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 36374 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Wed Mar 27 13:37:14 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Feedback by UC projects on your GE: FINSENY Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FD27B7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear GE-providers, Please find attached the feedback, gathered from one of the (phase 1) use case projects in relation to your GE provided through the WP10/Testbed workpackage to you. Please forward this information to people I might have forgotten on the list. For the GE "(Backend) Device Management GE" I couldn't identify a single contact point within the fi-ware catalogue here the chapter lead should take this and distribute it accordingly. As you probably know, the UC projects are currently following a validation process, defined within https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/D.10.5.1.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page They expressed their opinion with the help of the attached xls-table. No it is your turn - use the feedback to refine your requirements and components or approach the use case projects directly and gather perhaps some quotes or to position your component within the rest of the project lifetime. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. As safecity was the project which made real pocs (arlanda and madrid) this questionnaire has an intrinsic extremely high value. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013-01-Validation_process_template_for_use_case_projects_v2_FINSENY_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 432443 bytes Desc: 2013-01-Validation_process_template_for_use_case_projects_v2_FINSENY_final.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FINSENY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v3_FINSENY_20130327.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 36374 bytes Desc: FINSENY_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v3_FINSENY_20130327.xlsx URL: From manieri at eng.it Wed Mar 27 16:13:24 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:13:24 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation In-Reply-To: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0A9B9D@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0A9B9D@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <51530C94.9010708@eng.it> For those who have not replied yet. A bit more time, but due to the Easter holidays and the meeting in Madrid you're kindly requested to provide you reply (all partners need to reply) by no later than Thur 28th April, End of Day. Best, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Data: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:16:26 +0000 Mittente: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: subsidies at tid.es Dear all, some of you are telling me that you need more time because you need to contact with the partner involved in your WP. It is reasonable. So, please, provide the update DoW by April 2^nd , 2013. Please don???t forget to activate the control change of the document. Thank you very much for your contribution. BR Javier. *De:*JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 9:00 *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu *CC:* JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; subsidies at tid.es *Asunto:* RE: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation *Importancia:* Alta Dear all. Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and modified if needed by each WPL. I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. *Please, each WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today*. Please review: Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) Description of each task. (word file) Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. BR Javier. *De:*JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu ; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu *CC:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *Asunto:* Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Hi all, A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification of further delays on the side of the Commission. If you believe that I should have added something in my response or you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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: *** Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation *Date: *** Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 *From: *** Juanjo Hierro *To: *** *CC: *** , , , , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" Dear Arian, Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your message below ... On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Juanjo, *The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. * I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered by the grant agreement. I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts in the things they have decided to concentrate on). I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, imho, in achieveing good results. Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad on EU industry. The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be considered in a very first approach: * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been transferred to an academia partner: o Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able to commit to support this interface in their product for the 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an ETSI M2M implementation already rather than to be able to develop it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made us feel more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an Architecture which already considered support to the relevant ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from any industry partner in Europe so that's why. o Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. Second because they were committed to contribute their implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering the code of the Store as open source could be something that would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is open source so we expect this will call the attention of third parties. * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement FI-WARE GEs: o PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also committed to implement it as open source and that is also relevant to ensure sustainability. o When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. o Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more elaborated response can be provided if needed. Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) cannot be correct. We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an amendment of the DoW. Then, what is most important is *what happens with the contributions from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB.* Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson Composition Engine (ECE) What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson IoT Gateway In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not critical to find a replacement for the ECE. Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by NSN. Specific questions: 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and _will be involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!"_ Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its beginning, but in different WPs. 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, all of them are Thales ... Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the *Electronic-only signature and transmission of Form C *(see attachment)? Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Arian. PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the ones in the grant agreement??? -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es ; Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. Best 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) Coordinator and 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: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Mar 27 16:32:30 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:32:30 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: [FI-PPP AB] SmartAgriFood - GE evaluation In-Reply-To: <2487F45015E27044B15ECEC170A407F0010F2B27@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <2487F45015E27044B15ECEC170A407F0010F2B27@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: dear thorsten, the complete validation from samrtagrifood. you migth rememeber the previous one was only a draft. ciao, stefano ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlos Maestre Terol Date: 2013/3/26 Subject: [FI-PPP AB] SmartAgriFood - GE evaluation To: ab at fi-ppp.eu Dear Stefano, all,**** ** ** Attached you may find the Word and Excel files containing the evaluation of the GEs provided by the PoCs of the SmartAgriFood project. We made the evaluation based on the scenarios provided within the doc file.**** ** ** Kind regards,**** Carlos**** ** ** [image: cid:image001.gif at 01CCBF17.DE01E180]**** *Carlos Maestre* ** ** Technical coordinator**** Manufacturing & Retail**** MRS Market**** ** ** Research & Innovation**** ** ** [image: cid:image002.gif at 01CCBF17.DE01E180]**** ** ** **** T +34 912065562**** carlos.maestre at atosresearch.eu**** ** ** Albarrac?n 25**** 28037 Madrid**** Spain**** ** ** ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ab mailing list Ab at fi-ppp.eu http://lists.fi-ppp.eu/mailman/listinfo/ab -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SMARTAGRIFOOD_FI-WARE_Validation_process_template_v5.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2470832 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SMARTAGRIFOOD_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v5.xlsx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43165 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Thu Mar 28 10:29:31 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:29:31 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Feedback by UC projects on your GE: SMART AGRIFOOD In-Reply-To: <9CDABAE310912A43A8F51500FAA484F91B78981BD5@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> References: <9CDABAE310912A43A8F51500FAA484F91B78981BD5@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FD3C1A@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, I'm happy to inform you that there has been updates to the validation and they added the scenario questionnaire in doc-format. Find both files attached. Best, /Thorsten -----Original Message----- From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Dienstag, 19. Februar 2013 15:27 To: Alex Glikson (GLIKSON at il.ibm.com); Heijnen Henk (henk.heijnen at technicolor.com); jsoriano at fi.upm.es; boris.moltchanov at telecomitalia.it; sergio.rolando at guest.telecomitalia.it; Leidig, Torsten; tobias.jacobs at neclab.eu; thierry.nagellen at orange.com; maarten.los at atosresearch.eu; wolfgang.steigerwald at telekom.de; robert.seidl at nsn.com; gerald.meyer at nsn.com; marco.ughetti at telecomitalia.it; davide.cappadona at guest.telecomitalia.it; TALI at il.ibm.com Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; stefano de panfilis; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Feedback by UC projects on your GE: SMART AGRIFOOD Dear GE-providers, Please find attached the feedback, gathered from one of the Use case projects in relation to your GE provided through the WP10/Testbed workpackage to you. Please forward this information to people I might have forgotten on the list. As you probably know, the UC projects are currently following a validation process, defined within https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-review/index.php/D.10.5.1.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page They expressed their opinion with the help of the attached xls-table. No it is your turn - use the feedback to refine your requirements and components or approach the use case projects directly and gather perhaps some quotes or to position your component within the rest of the project lifetime. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SMARTAGRIFOOD_FI-WARE_Validation_process_template_v5.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2471603 bytes Desc: SMARTAGRIFOOD_FI-WARE_Validation_process_template_v5.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SMARTAGRIFOOD_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v5.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 43936 bytes Desc: SMARTAGRIFOOD_FI-WARE Testbed Questionnaire_v5.xlsx URL: