From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Mon Dec 5 10:47:20 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:47:20 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Tools Roadmap page In-Reply-To: <4ED3B493.4030209@eng.it> References: <4ED3B493.4030209@eng.it> Message-ID: <4EDC9328.9050006@eng.it> Dear Partners, I remind you this ... as well as the upload of your presentations into the forge under the proper meeting folder. ciao Davide On 28/11/2011 17:19, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: > Dear partners, > please update the wiki page with what you presented during the Rome > meeting > regarding the Roadmap > > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Tools_Roadmap > > regards, > Davide > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-tools mailing list > Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 6 11:19:34 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:19:34 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conf call reminder Message-ID: <4EDDEC36.7090305@eng.it> Dear All, please remind the conference call, today at 11.30. Contact details as usual. Regards, Davide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 6 14:14:40 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:14:40 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft Message-ID: <4EDE1540.5050200@eng.it> Dear All, attached the today meeting minutes. Please let me know if I forgot or misinterpreted something. Thanks again for joining and for your contributions. Regards, Davide -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wp9-2011.12.06-minutes.doc Type: application/msword Size: 215040 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Wed Dec 7 15:21:42 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:21:42 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] DevComE Technical Description published Message-ID: <4EDF7676.5060209@eng.it> Dear Partners, I just finished to move the the technical description from the private to the public wiki. now the link from the main page of the private one points to the public page. !!! The private page has been removed !!! so starting from now all the updates are done directly on the public page cheers, Davide From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Mon Dec 12 18:13:33 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:13:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conf call reminder In-Reply-To: <4EDDEC36.7090305@eng.it> References: <4EDDEC36.7090305@eng.it> Message-ID: <4EE6363D.10103@eng.it> Dear All, please remind the conference call, tomorrow at 11.30. Contact details as usual. Regards, Davide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 13 11:30:06 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:30:06 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EE7292E.9070707@eng.it> let's discuss about this in the conf call ciao, D -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:42:15 +0200 From: Alex Glikson To: matteo.melideo at eng.it, Davide Dalle Carbonare CC: Juanjo Hierro Hi, I have one rather significant comment, related to several questions throughout the questionnaire. There are two scenarios potentially requiring integration with cloud deployment: A) app developer uses IaaS cloud infrastructure in order to test his application (instead of heaving a dedicated testbed comprising physical machines); B) app developer is developing an application which is designed to run on top of Cloud infrastructure -- IaaS-style or PaaS-style. The two scenarios are very different in nature, but both would potentially need to leverage deployment APIs provided by Cloud Hosting GEs. By the way, this would also require tooling for creation of the deployment package -- e.g., in OVF format. I would recommend adding explicitly these use-cases to the document. Please, notice that in this case the "user" of the Cloud GEs would be the IDE, rather the application or the application developer directly. Regards, Alex From: Matteo Melideo To: FI-WARE WPL Date: 12/12/2011 07:03 PM Subject: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 Sent by: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear WP-Leaders, it is extremely important that you collaborate with us to fill the attached questionnaire. We have to start coding and the risk is that we will do this without taking into account your requirements and realizing, in the end, something completely useless and not in line with your expectations. Please dedicate part of your valuable time for this!!! Thanks in advance and regards, M. P.S. In the meantime also the final, v2, of the document is published into the official FI-WARE wiki -------- Messaggio originale -------- *Oggetto: * Tools questionnaire v2 *Data: * Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:02:40 +0100 *Mittente: * Davide Dalle Carbonare __ *A: * _fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu_ , _fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu_ *CC: * Juanjo Hierro __ , Thomas Michael Bohnert __ , Stefano De Panfilis __ , Matteo Melideo __ Dear leaders and architects, The WP9 needs few minutes of your time to fill the attached questionnaire. We strongly ask you take care of it in order to provide us your requirements for the development, deploy, test and validation infrastructure. Thanks to your information we can avoid to waste time towards wrong directions that can also be read by the reviewers as a communication problems inside the consortium. I ask you to send it back to me by Friday 9th EOB and, in the case you will not be able to meet this deadline, please, write me a message with the new date. Kind Regards, Davide ps: the final, v2, of the document will be published into the official FI-WARE wiki within next week with some possible minor updates, nevertheless, you can use the attached version to fill the questionnaire without any problem. [attachment "FI-WARE WP9 Questionnaire v2.doc" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "FI-WARE WP9 Questionnaire v2.odt" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "FI-WARE DevComE Technical Description v2.pdf" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "matteo_melideo.vcf" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de Tue Dec 13 14:10:03 2011 From: Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de (Jonischkat, Tim) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:10:03 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 In-Reply-To: <4EE7292E.9070707@eng.it> References: <4EE7292E.9070707@eng.it> Message-ID: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA111587C7@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> Dear all, first - Davide, excuse me for breaking up the discussion on that point, - but I really did not get Alex's point in the confcall! :) I understand that Alex wants to remind us that his chapter will have to provide an API for deploying applications from the IDE into the Cloud environment. That is clear for me. So the interfacing component of our WP would only be ETICS in that case, right? The OVF packaging is more a task for the IDE itself, right? What I don't get is what the difference is between the two scenarios he describes. Can someone clarify? What is the difference between a deployment and deployment testing? For me, deployment testing is trying to deploy something and then checking that everything works as expected. Is that the right definition? Gabriele, maybe you can clarify that? Cheers Tim Von: fiware-tools-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-tools-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Im Auftrag von Davide Dalle Carbonare Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011 11:30 An: fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu Betreff: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 let's discuss about this in the conf call ciao, D -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:42:15 +0200 From: Alex Glikson To: matteo.melideo at eng.it, Davide Dalle Carbonare CC: Juanjo Hierro Hi, I have one rather significant comment, related to several questions throughout the questionnaire. There are two scenarios potentially requiring integration with cloud deployment: A) app developer uses IaaS cloud infrastructure in order to test his application (instead of heaving a dedicated testbed comprising physical machines); B) app developer is developing an application which is designed to run on top of Cloud infrastructure -- IaaS-style or PaaS-style. The two scenarios are very different in nature, but both would potentially need to leverage deployment APIs provided by Cloud Hosting GEs. By the way, this would also require tooling for creation of the deployment package -- e.g., in OVF format. I would recommend adding explicitly these use-cases to the document. Please, notice that in this case the "user" of the Cloud GEs would be the IDE, rather the application or the application developer directly. Regards, Alex From: Matteo Melideo To: FI-WARE WPL Date: 12/12/2011 07:03 PM Subject: [Fiware-wpl] **** VERY URGENT *** Fwd: Tools questionnaire v2 Sent by: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear WP-Leaders, it is extremely important that you collaborate with us to fill the attached questionnaire. We have to start coding and the risk is that we will do this without taking into account your requirements and realizing, in the end, something completely useless and not in line with your expectations. Please dedicate part of your valuable time for this!!! Thanks in advance and regards, M. P.S. In the meantime also the final, v2, of the document is published into the official FI-WARE wiki -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: Tools questionnaire v2 Data: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:02:40 +0100 Mittente: Davide Dalle Carbonare A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu, fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: Juanjo Hierro , Thomas Michael Bohnert , Stefano De Panfilis , Matteo Melideo Dear leaders and architects, The WP9 needs few minutes of your time to fill the attached questionnaire. We strongly ask you take care of it in order to provide us your requirements for the development, deploy, test and validation infrastructure. Thanks to your information we can avoid to waste time towards wrong directions that can also be read by the reviewers as a communication problems inside the consortium. I ask you to send it back to me by Friday 9th EOB and, in the case you will not be able to meet this deadline, please, write me a message with the new date. Kind Regards, Davide ps: the final, v2, of the document will be published into the official FI-WARE wiki within next week with some possible minor updates, nevertheless, you can use the attached version to fill the questionnaire without any problem. [attachment "FI-WARE WP9 Questionnaire v2.doc" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "FI-WARE WP9 Questionnaire v2.odt" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "FI-WARE DevComE Technical Description v2.pdf" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "matteo_melideo.vcf" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 13 14:17:38 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:17:38 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft Message-ID: <4EE75072.2070706@eng.it> Dear All, attached the today meeting minutes. Please let me know if I forgot or misinterpreted something. Thanks again for joining and for your contributions. Regards, Davide -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wp9-2011.12.13-minutes.doc Type: application/msword Size: 212480 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de Tue Dec 13 15:52:23 2011 From: Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de (Jonischkat, Tim) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:52:23 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-tools] T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support Message-ID: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11158984@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> Dear all, I created a new wiki page (available from the Main Page) dealing with the methodological tasks in T9.2: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Engineering_Methodology It contains information about the S-CUBE lifecycle for service-based applications, which acts as the main input for the lifecycle defined for FI-Apps/GEs (defined in the second part). As a first draft, I split the activities of the development processes defined in https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_DevComE_Technical_Description#DevComE_Use_Cases over the lifecycle stages. The next step for me would be to clarify the coverage of your assets with respect to the defined lifecycle. An example is attached. Please do (1) comment on my initial draft of the lifecycle and (2) tell me if you agree with my planning of the next step. Cheers Tim --- Tim Jonischkat paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology University of Duisburg-Essen Gerlingstra?e 16 45127 Essen, Germany T: +49 201 183 4659 F: +49 201 183 4699 E: tim.jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de http://www.paluno.uni-due.de / http://www.sse.uni-due.de VAT ID: DE811272995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lifecycle-coverage-example.png Type: image/png Size: 25605 bytes Desc: lifecycle-coverage-example.png URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 13 17:31:14 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:31:14 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Backlog management custom fields Message-ID: <4EE77DD2.5090605@eng.it> Dear partners, I've updated the custom fields for the backlog items. Now you can find a combo box "FI-WARE Sprint" that lists the monts as (M8, M9, M10 ...) for those months that implies also a minor or major release there's a specific label to that represents that additional info. The two old fields as been deleted. check it out and play with it ... let me know ciao Davide From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Wed Dec 14 16:07:44 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:07:44 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] [WARNING - NOT VIRUS SCANNED] backlog overall picture Message-ID: <4EE8BBC0.30007@eng.it> Dear Partners, because of I was missing a quick overall picture of the backlog items and hierarchy I've produced this mind map (see attached the source and an image export) the blue boxes are the current Epics we have; the leafs are the User Stories in the middle of the two we may consider to add Features. the map this highlights how we can group or split something and also that there are duplicated entries such as "FI Project Deployment" and "Deploy a FI Project" the values in brackets are the ratings from the internal survey we have done. hope this help also you to update the contents and to add the User Stories in the most appropriate way. ciao Davide -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP9 User Stories.png Type: image/png Size: 127465 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WP9 User Stories.xmind Type: application/xmind Size: 153710 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Dec 19 10:57:46 2011 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:57:46 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support In-Reply-To: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11158984@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> References: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11158984@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> Message-ID: <4EEF0A9A.1030403@eng.it> Dear Tim, thanks a lot for the work done. Let's fix a deadlines for these two inputs required. Regards, Matteo On marted? 13 dicembre 2011 15:52:23, Jonischkat, Tim wrote: > Dear all, > > I created a new wiki page (available from the Main Page) dealing with > the methodological tasks in T9.2: > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Engineering_Methodology > > It contains information about the S-CUBE lifecycle for service-based > applications, which acts as the main input for the lifecycle defined > for FI-Apps/GEs (defined in the second part). As a first draft, I > split the activities of the development processes defined in > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_DevComE_Technical_Description#DevComE_Use_Casesover > the lifecycle stages. > > The next step for me would be to clarify the coverage of your assets > with respect to the defined lifecycle. An example is attached. > > Please do (1) comment on my initial draft of the lifecycle and (2) > tell me if you agree with my planning of the next step. > > Cheers > > Tim > > --- > > Tim Jonischkat > > paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology > > University of Duisburg-Essen > > Gerlingstra?e 16 > > 45127 Essen, Germany > > T: +49 201 183 4659 > > F: +49 201 183 4699 > > E: tim.jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de > > > http://www.paluno.uni-due.de / > > http://www.sse.uni-due.de > > VAT ID: DE811272995 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-tools mailing list > Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 368 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Mon Dec 19 18:05:28 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:05:28 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: [Fiware] We are on Facebook now! In-Reply-To: <4EEF616A.9000307@tid.es> References: <4EEF616A.9000307@tid.es> Message-ID: <4EEF6ED8.9030706@eng.it> have fun. ciao, D -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fiware] We are on Facebook now! Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:08:10 +0100 From: Miguel Carrillo To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, We have our Facebook page now. You can reach it on: WPL, can you please disseminate this within your respective WPs? http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 Please tick on the "I like it" button to help us grow a reasonable number of votes on Facebook. Thanks Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ Fiware mailing list Fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de Mon Dec 19 18:14:36 2011 From: Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de (Jonischkat, Tim) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:14:36 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-tools] T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support Message-ID: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11166078@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> Dear partners, last week I sent around a draft of a lifecycle to be used for the Methodology definition in T9.2. Until now, I did not receive any comments yet. If you want to comment or discuss about the lifecycle, please do not hesitate to contact me. If there is no such discussion until end of this week (Dec 23rd), I ask you to define the lifecycle coverage of your companies' asset until Jan 6th (detailed instructions will follow on Friday). Afterwards, we can go on by detailing the development process steps! Thanks in advance for comments and participation. Cheers Tim Von: Jonischkat, Tim Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011 15:52 An: fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu Betreff: T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support Dear all, I created a new wiki page (available from the Main Page) dealing with the methodological tasks in T9.2: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Engineering_Methodology It contains information about the S-CUBE lifecycle for service-based applications, which acts as the main input for the lifecycle defined for FI-Apps/GEs (defined in the second part). As a first draft, I split the activities of the development processes defined in https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_DevComE_Technical_Description#DevComE_Use_Cases over the lifecycle stages. The next step for me would be to clarify the coverage of your assets with respect to the defined lifecycle. An example is attached. Please do (1) comment on my initial draft of the lifecycle and (2) tell me if you agree with my planning of the next step. Cheers Tim --- Tim Jonischkat paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology University of Duisburg-Essen Gerlingstra?e 16 45127 Essen, Germany T: +49 201 183 4659 F: +49 201 183 4699 E: tim.jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de http://www.paluno.uni-due.de / http://www.sse.uni-due.de VAT ID: DE811272995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Dec 19 18:20:55 2011 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:20:55 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] On Wp9 I am now worried!!!! Message-ID: <4EEF7277.5090709@eng.it> Dear All, now I start to be a bit worried about the status of the Wp9!!! As you know the project decided to use a Forge and a Wiki to manage and monitor the daily project activities. Up to now I do not see any activity (if not very few) registered for the Wp9: very few user stories (the more serious issue), very old and not updated to do list and a scarce wiki population. Bear in mind that at the end of the period the activities registered and reported into these tools (forge and wiki) will be used to assess the effort claimed by each of you. These are the project tools we should also use to avoid every week to sort hundred mails to recap what we did and understand where we are! In addition to this let me clarify that each partner is responsible for its own assigned part. This means responsible for the technical parts (req.\des.\dev.\depl.\test of their specific tools\functionalities) but also for the related Forge and Wiki population. If we sent around a wrong message we do apologize for the mistake!!! Please, start to properly use forge and wiki then. Last but not least, it seems we have a problem as ETICS was confused for a deployment tool (partially it is but only within it specific test environment) while it not. We have to sort out a solution to address the deployment aspects in Task9.3 first of all starting to understand what means to deploy a FIA Apps in Wp9. On this respect I have a request of clarification for EAB. In the Wp9 description (Task9.3) of the FI-WARE Annex it is written "*EAB: linking to FI Apps deployment system*". What does this mean? Thanks for your cooperation and best regards, Matteo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 20 09:47:30 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:47:30 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conf call reminder In-Reply-To: <4EDDEC36.7090305@eng.it> References: <4EDDEC36.7090305@eng.it> Message-ID: <4EF04BA2.4050503@eng.it> Dear All, please remind the conference call, today at 11.30. Contact details as usual. Agenda: task status next general assembly first minor release Regards, Davide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 20 10:38:27 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:38:27 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Notes from last joint WPLs/WPAs confcall In-Reply-To: <4EF052AC.5090901@tid.es> References: <4EF052AC.5090901@tid.es> Message-ID: <4EF05793.5050002@eng.it> Dear friends, please, take a look at the minutes of the yesterday WPLs/WPAs joint conf call. ciao, Davide -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Notes from last joint WPLs/WPAs confcall Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:17:32 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi all, Please find below my notes from our confcall today. Please share with your respective teams. As you see, there will be a number of APs to setup a number of Task Forces, each concentrated in a particular cross-chapter topic (see point on goals and agenda). A mailing list for discussion on the topic will be setup. In addition, a ticket will be created in a Task Force Management tracker we will setup in the "FI-WARE Private" project in FusionForge that has been created. The ticket will point to the archive of the mailing list being created and will help us to follow up progress. Cheers, -- Juanjo *1. Attendees* * Cloud Chapter: Alex (IBM) * Data Chapter: Carlos (TID) * IoT Chapter: Denes (NSN) * Apps Chapter: Torsten (SAP), Axel (SAP) * Security Chapter: None * I2ND: Pier (TI), Hans (DT) * Dev Tools: Davide (Engineering) * Exploitation (Juan) *2. Goals and agenda:* The main goal of the confcall is to identify architectural topics that will require further discussion involving more than one chapter. An Architecture Task Force will be created for each relevant topic. Concretely, this will mean that: * TID will set up a dedicated mailing list and create a ticket on the Task Force tracker in the FI-WARE private project in FusionForge * Each WPL/WPA will designate who should join from their chapters * The partner who proposed the Task Force (owner of the Task Force) will kick-off the discussion on the mailing list by sending an email which helps as terms of reference * The owner of the Task Force should present conclusions at the joint WPL/WPA meeting that will take place on January 23rd Each WPL/WPA was requested to bring any cross-chapter topic for which he wish to create a Task Force. The following partners brought some views: * Juanjo (TID) * Davide (Engineering) * Torsten (SAP) * Pier (Telecom Italia) *3. Presentation by Juanjo* 3.1 Generalize Event Management model being proposed at the level of Things in IoT chapter, applying it to Cloud Monitoring and Security Events Monitoring Despite it is still under discussion, the Event Management Model being proposed at the level of Things in the IoT chapter is rather generic and has been defined so it is consistent with the Event Management model defined within the Data/Context Management Model. This Event Management Model is based on the OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) specs for NGSI Context-Management. In such model, an event leads to generation of a Context Element data structure which includes info about updated values of properties linked to entities defined in the system. An entity maps to the concept of "Thing" in the IoT chapter but there may be other entities in the system (e.g., another application). In FI-WARE, values assigned to properties describing Things will be derived from data gathered from IoT resources, referred as sensors, which run on IoT devices. Associations between Things and IoT resources as well as formulas for mapping values of IoT resources into properties of entities are handled through an IoT Configuration Management GE at the Things Management Layer. However, this concept may be further generalized so that we talk about "Monitoring Agents" or "Monitored Resources". The model would then be able to work for both Cloud Monitoring and Security Events Monitoring. The advantage for this approach would be reuse of components, as well as exhibiting higher coherence. *AP*: Setup task force to check whether the Events Management Model defined at the level of Things within IoT chapter can be adopted for both Cloud monitoring and Security events monitoring. Mailing list to be created: fiware-monitoring 3.2 Glue middleware There are a number of issues that are related to how interfaces exported by GEs are actually specified and implemented: * first, we have to agree on a common way to specify interfaces exported by GEs ... Should we adopt REST as a minimum common denominator ? Can we define a technology-neutral approach that would allow an interface to be accessible using multiple technologies (REST, WS, optimized binary protocols, ...) and would allow us to overcome that a given technology becomes deprecated ? * second, the most suitable technical solution for some Security issues may need to implement some functions at middleware level * third, APIs usage accountability may require that also some functions be implemented at middleware level if we want to achieve a suitable level of transparency Alex: not sure if we can decide on one API paradigm but he agrees we should support just a limited set Juanjo: is not about choosing one API paradigm but probably define an interface definition language that may abstract us from the limited set of API paradigms we will support (which could then be extended over time). Denes: any decision on middleware should take into account that middleware may need to fit with restrictions about computing resources in IoT devices *AP*: Setup task force on the matter. Mailing list to be created: fiware-middleware 3.3 Network-aware Cloud Some UC projects have declared the need to be able to declare what SLO (Service Level Objectives) they want to see fulfilled for certain end-to-end scenarios, typically requiring communication between applications running on the Cloud and IoT gateways (cloud proxies) or end users. It would then be up to the Cloud Hosting capabilities in FI-WARE to cope with those SLOs relying on capacities of the underlying network. Despite we will see whether this functionality would easily fit in the roadmap based on available resources, all declare to agree with creation of a Task Force on the matter. It will typically involve partners from the I2ND chapter, Cloud chapter and Apps chapter (since we need to resolve how this sort of SLOs become part of the SLA definition linked to an application) We agree to leave P2P scenarios aside for the time being unless UC projects raise the need to analyze them. *AP*: Start with a single Task Force involving I2ND, Cloud and Apps chapter members. Mailing list to be created: fiware-network-cloud-SLOs Eventually split into two task forces if needed which may be: - a task force involving Apps (Business Framework) and Cloud chapters, dealing with how to declare SLAs at USDL related to end-to-end SLOs - a task force involving Cloud and I2ND chapter dealing with how to implement SLOs relying on QoS management functions exported by networks 3.4 Semantic Web Infrastructure: Several chapters addressing development of GEs whose implementation relies on Semantic Web technologies. We should go for the selection of a single technology for this (mostly RDF storage and SPARQL support) AP: Setup a Task Force that takes a decision for all the project. Mailing list to be created: fiware-semantic-platform Torsten: Shouldn't we also go for a common decision regarding linked-data GE ? AP: Apps chapter to share info about linked-data technologies being defined in their chapter so that rest of WPAs can evaluate whether it can be used elsewhere (info to be sent to fiware-wpa mailing list for the time being) 3.5 Common Look&Feel in FI-WARE portals AP: Juanjo to launch a thread of discussion on the matter so that we can start discussion on the matter *4. Development Tools by Davide* Davide reinforce the need to link some of the developments to be made within the Dev&Tools and those in other chapters. Particularly those that have to do with deployment tools where we need to explore how they integrate (or matches) the development of part of the Cloud portal. He also reinforce the need to make a decision on how interfaces will be specified and what protocols will be supported. Davide take the opportunity to reinforce that other chapter leaders should answer the questionnaire that was distributed by WP9 to all WPLs/WPAs. *5. Presentation by Torsten* Despite Torsten didn't have time to present all cross-chapter topics, he made emphasis on the need to push for making services provided by FI-WARE GEs available in the marketplace. This means that they should be defined in USDL. Juanjo: this should allow that a FI-WARE Instance Provider operating a FI-WARE Instance defined around the Marketplace GEs offer third parties the ability to publish their implementation of FI-WARE GEs in other chapters and get paid for their usage by applications. It would also help a FI-WARE Instance Provider operating a FI-WARE Instance that deploys all FI-WARE GEs to establish how it plans to charge for usage of their services by applications. AP: To setup Task Force on discussion about USDL. Mailing list to be created: fiware-usdl As a second major point in his presentation, Torsten put emphasis on the need to close the definition of the GEs supporting Identity Management. We should soon have the APIs of these GEs defined as soon as possible. Juanjo and Pier highlighted this is rather relevant. Juanjo expects that the Security chapter has been able to further refine the vision that they presented in the workshop which took place in November and now could present a detailed Reference Architecture with well-defined APIs. AP: To setup Task Force on discussion about Security Identity Management, Access Control and Data Handling. Mailing list to be created fiware-security-core Unfortunately, there was not time to address other topics to be brought by Torsten. He will distribute his presentation among WPLs/WPAs. *6. Short comments by Pier* Pier mentioned that they are already working on how to ensure that cloud-edge proxy supports all capabilities that are needed to host IoT software. AP: We may consider that a Task Force is already in place. We just need to create a dedicated mailing list to discuss on the matter: ------------- Juanjo Hierro Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital email:jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From jesus.gorronogoitia at atosresearch.eu Tue Dec 20 10:48:47 2011 From: jesus.gorronogoitia at atosresearch.eu (Yosu =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gorro=F1ogoitia?=) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:48:47 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conf call reminder In-Reply-To: <4EF04BA2.4050503@eng.it> References: <4EDDEC36.7090305@eng.it> <4EF04BA2.4050503@eng.it> Message-ID: <1324374527.2451.14.camel@avalon.atos.net> Dear Davide, today i will be available for the conf call, from 11:30 to 12:00, due to another conf call scheduled at 12:00. Sorry for the inconveniences. Regards Yosu On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 09:47 +0100, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: > Dear All, > please remind the conference call, today at 11.30. > > Contact details as usual. > > Agenda: > task status > next general assembly > first minor release > > Regards, > Davide > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-tools mailing list > Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Tue Dec 20 15:53:30 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft Message-ID: <4EF0A16A.6080300@eng.it> Dear All, attached the today meeting minutes. Please let me know if I forgot or misinterpreted something and check the deadlines for this week. Regarding the Backlog Management: Let's keep it the more simple as possible, we don't have to spend too much time on this! The list can evolve over time but now we have to start from something. Wiki: the most relevant fields of the the backlog items are: Name, Goal, Description (if needed), leave the others empty if you don't know what to insert. Tracker: all not relevant fields has been removed. This work will not take too much time if you have a clear idea of what you are doing ... just to give you an example, for the 10 User Stories I've inserted up no now I've spent no more than two ours, updates, reviews included. Thanks again for joining and for your contributions. Regards, Davide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wp9-2011.12.20-minutes.doc Type: application/msword Size: 212480 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Wed Dec 21 14:36:33 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:36:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: LAST CALL - Tools questionnaire v2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EF1E0E1.5030300@eng.it> Dear WP9ers, after the last reminder, some reply has started get back ... here is the first one. ciao Davide > Dear Davide, > > Andreas is no longer working in FI-Ware. I'll send out an email according to the personelle changes soon. > Your mail reached me with some delay. I tried to answer the questions as good as possible. > My question : who is addressed by the questionnaire? Should it be forwarded to all WP members providing GE. Not everybody might contribute tools to the IDE. > > Regards, > Torsrten Leidig -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE WP9 Questionnaire v2.doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roozbeh.farahbod at sap.com Wed Dec 21 18:31:07 2011 From: roozbeh.farahbod at sap.com (Farahbod, Roozbeh) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:31:07 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft In-Reply-To: <4EF0A16A.6080300@eng.it> Message-ID: Hi, I have added SoPeCo user stories for M12 into the Wiki and the tracker. Davide and Tim, please check to see if they look fine to you. Once I added them in the wiki, I found it a pain to add them again into the tracker; especially the mandatory field "Description" in the tracker is absolutely redundant I believe. We are already copying the link and the name and copy pasting the description is useless. The description is only a click-away from the link. My two cents. Except for the first one, I put "see wiki" in the description. My two cents. Cheers, Roozbeh From: Davide Dalle Carbonare > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:53:30 +0100 To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu" > Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft Dear All, attached the today meeting minutes. Please let me know if I forgot or misinterpreted something and check the deadlines for this week. Regarding the Backlog Management: Let's keep it the more simple as possible, we don't have to spend too much time on this! The list can evolve over time but now we have to start from something. Wiki: the most relevant fields of the the backlog items are: Name, Goal, Description (if needed), leave the others empty if you don't know what to insert. Tracker: all not relevant fields has been removed. This work will not take too much time if you have a clear idea of what you are doing ... just to give you an example, for the 10 User Stories I've inserted up no now I've spent no more than two ours, updates, reviews included. Thanks again for joining and for your contributions. Regards, Davide From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Wed Dec 21 23:14:05 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:14:05 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EF25A2D.1090300@eng.it> Well done Roozbeh! I've looked the them and they are a good starting point that you can update if needed. I tried to turn the Summary of the ticket an optional field but it's default field and I still haven't found if and how to change that configuration ... ciao Davide On 21/12/2011 18:31, Farahbod, Roozbeh wrote: > Hi, > > I have added SoPeCo user stories for M12 into the Wiki and the tracker. > > Davide and Tim, please check to see if they look fine to you. > > Once I added them in the wiki, I found it a pain to add them again into the tracker; especially the mandatory field "Description" in the tracker is absolutely redundant I believe. We are already copying the link and the name and copy pasting the description is useless. The description is only a click-away from the link. My two cents. > > Except for the first one, I put "see wiki" in the description. > > My two cents. > > Cheers, > Roozbeh > > > From: Davide Dalle Carbonare> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:53:30 +0100 > To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu"> > Subject: [Fiware-tools] Minutes draft > > Dear All, > attached the today meeting minutes. > Please let me know if I forgot or misinterpreted something and check the deadlines > for this week. > > Regarding the Backlog Management: > Let's keep it the more simple as possible, we don't have to spend too much time on this! > The list can evolve over time but now we have to start from something. > > Wiki: the most relevant fields of the the backlog items are: Name, Goal, Description (if needed), > leave the others empty if you don't know what to insert. > > Tracker: all not relevant fields has been removed. > > This work will not take too much time if you have a clear idea of what you are doing ... just to give you an > example, for the 10 User Stories I've inserted up no now I've spent no more than two ours, updates, reviews > included. > > > Thanks again for joining and for your contributions. > Regards, > Davide > > From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Thu Dec 22 15:45:22 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:45:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support In-Reply-To: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11166078@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> References: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11166078@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> Message-ID: <4EF34282.8030400@eng.it> Tim, sorry for the bad delay ... The structure is fine and I like the approach to start from full S-CUBE and select those steps that fit with fi-ware. Perfect with your proposed next step. I would add also a review of the boxes we have used to describe the workflow with the aim of turning them into specific chapters of the methodology where to describe actions and tools usage. some trivial points: - is it more appropriate to use the term "construction" or "build"? - I would try to reduce a bit the size of the images Davide On 19/12/2011 18:14, Jonischkat, Tim wrote: > > Dear partners, > > last week I sent around a draft of a lifecycle to be used for the > Methodology definition in T9.2. > > Until now, I did not receive any comments yet. > > If you want to comment or discuss about the lifecycle, please do not > hesitate to contact me. If there is no such discussion until end of > this week (Dec 23^rd ), I ask you to define the lifecycle coverage of > your companies' asset until Jan 6^th (detailed instructions will > follow on Friday). > > Afterwards, we can go on by detailing the development process steps! > > Thanks in advance for comments and participation. > > Cheers > > Tim > > *Von:*Jonischkat, Tim > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011 15:52 > *An:* fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Betreff:* T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for > methodology support > > Dear all, > > I created a new wiki page (available from the Main Page) dealing with > the methodological tasks in T9.2: > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Engineering_Methodology > > It contains information about the S-CUBE lifecycle for service-based > applications, which acts as the main input for the lifecycle defined > for FI-Apps/GEs (defined in the second part). As a first draft, I > split the activities of the development processes defined in > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_DevComE_Technical_Description#DevComE_Use_Casesover > the lifecycle stages. > > The next step for me would be to clarify the coverage of your assets > with respect to the defined lifecycle. An example is attached. > > Please do (1) comment on my initial draft of the lifecycle and (2) > tell me if you agree with my planning of the next step. > > Cheers > > Tim > > --- > > Tim Jonischkat > > paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology > > University of Duisburg-Essen > > Gerlingstra?e 16 > > 45127 Essen, Germany > > T: +49 201 183 4659 > > F: +49 201 183 4699 > > E: tim.jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de > > > http://www.paluno.uni-due.de / > > http://www.sse.uni-due.de > > VAT ID: DE811272995 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-tools mailing list > Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Thu Dec 22 16:19:22 2011 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:19:22 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: [Fiware] New wiki & Information for January's meeting at Madrid In-Reply-To: <4EF31CC8.1080908@tid.es> References: <4EF31CC8.1080908@tid.es> Message-ID: <4EF34A7A.2010102@eng.it> Dear Partners, I just added all of you (the ones with Senior Development role in Tools project) to the new private project. let me know if you encounter some problem accessing the relative private wiki. ciao Davide -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fiware] New wiki & Information for January's meeting at Madrid Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:04:24 +0100 From: Miguel Carrillo To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, We have set up a private wiki. It is so private that the project that contains it is not listed under the project list on the forge. This is the address: * Private wiki: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/Main_Page The WPLs and WPAs must have granted access to all the FI-WARE members. If you cannot access it, please let them know. The information for the meeting is quite detailed and we believe it will be useful to help you plan everything: * Practical info to travel to Madrid & Telef?nica:https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/MadridGeneralAssembly Best regards, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito C _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 5 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ Madrid 28050 (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail:mcp at tid.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de Fri Dec 23 09:49:52 2011 From: Tim.Jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de (Jonischkat, Tim) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:49:52 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-tools] T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support In-Reply-To: <4EF34282.8030400@eng.it> References: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11166078@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> <4EF34282.8030400@eng.it> Message-ID: <613708793959FC4A890C040BF1CF7ABA11168F60@WIWINF-EXDAG01.wiwinf.uni-due.de> Hi Davide, thank you for your feedback! Concerning your points: (1) I would prefer the term "Construction" so that no one confuses it with the "Build" in terms of "Compiling and Packaging", which would not be the correct interpretation of the process step. (2) The images have been resized. It was just a matter of Mediawiki Hacking :) For changing the Development Process descriptions, I can provide the source files of the images. As I don't have them on my computer, but only on a server I cannot access currently, I can do that directly after my vacation. I also want to thank you Davide for already filling out the lifecycle coverage information for your tools: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Engineering_Methodology#All_Development_Tools . @All: please check that table and make modifications, if necessary. Just for clarification: the black color was for "high relevance to the development step", the gray color for "lower relevance" or "(only) partial coverage of the development step". Thanks to all for the good cooperation we had in 2011. Wish you all a merry Christmas! See you again next year! Best regards Tim Von: Davide Dalle Carbonare [mailto:davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Dezember 2011 15:45 An: Jonischkat, Tim Cc: fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu Betreff: Re: [Fiware-tools] T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support Tim, sorry for the bad delay ... The structure is fine and I like the approach to start from full S-CUBE and select those steps that fit with fi-ware. Perfect with your proposed next step. I would add also a review of the boxes we have used to describe the workflow with the aim of turning them into specific chapters of the methodology where to describe actions and tools usage. some trivial points: - is it more appropriate to use the term "construction" or "build"? - I would try to reduce a bit the size of the images Davide On 19/12/2011 18:14, Jonischkat, Tim wrote: Dear partners, last week I sent around a draft of a lifecycle to be used for the Methodology definition in T9.2. Until now, I did not receive any comments yet. If you want to comment or discuss about the lifecycle, please do not hesitate to contact me. If there is no such discussion until end of this week (Dec 23rd), I ask you to define the lifecycle coverage of your companies' asset until Jan 6th (detailed instructions will follow on Friday). Afterwards, we can go on by detailing the development process steps! Thanks in advance for comments and participation. Cheers Tim Von: Jonischkat, Tim Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011 15:52 An: fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu Betreff: T9.2: Initial draft of the FI-App/GE lifecycle for methodology support Dear all, I created a new wiki page (available from the Main Page) dealing with the methodological tasks in T9.2: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/tools/index.php/Engineering_Methodology It contains information about the S-CUBE lifecycle for service-based applications, which acts as the main input for the lifecycle defined for FI-Apps/GEs (defined in the second part). As a first draft, I split the activities of the development processes defined in https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_DevComE_Technical_Description#DevComE_Use_Cases over the lifecycle stages. The next step for me would be to clarify the coverage of your assets with respect to the defined lifecycle. An example is attached. Please do (1) comment on my initial draft of the lifecycle and (2) tell me if you agree with my planning of the next step. Cheers Tim --- Tim Jonischkat paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology University of Duisburg-Essen Gerlingstra?e 16 45127 Essen, Germany T: +49 201 183 4659 F: +49 201 183 4699 E: tim.jonischkat at paluno.uni-due.de http://www.paluno.uni-due.de / http://www.sse.uni-due.de VAT ID: DE811272995 _______________________________________________ Fiware-tools mailing list Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: