From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 2 12:41:11 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:41:11 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Questions for UC projects and GE providers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FF17AC7.5050902@eng.it> Thanks you Roozbeh. Please use the following to ask questions. Best M. Il 29/06/2012 11:08, Farahbod, Roozbeh ha scritto: > Thank you Davide. > > Please find my additions (and few correction suggestions) attached. > > Kind Regards, > Roozbeh > > From: Davide Dalle Carbonare > > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:19:51 +0200 > To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu > " > > Subject: Re: [Fiware-tools] Questions for UC projects and GE providers > > Dear all, > here are again the questions for UC projects and GE Providers. > We've added a couple of points to the GE providers one. > > cheers, > Davide > > > On 15/06/2012 17:31, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: >> Dear WP9ers, >> >> here are the preliminary questions we will use to collect the additional >> information we need from Use Case projects and GE providers. >> >> deadline for your contributions is *Friday 22/06/2012 EOB* >> >> have a nice week-end and >> Kind Regards, >> Davide >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fiware-tools mailing list >> Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.euhttp://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 2 12:47:53 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Questions for UC projects and GE providers In-Reply-To: <4FF17AC7.5050902@eng.it> References: <4FF17AC7.5050902@eng.it> Message-ID: <4FF17C59.7030208@eng.it> ... the attachment. M. Il 02/07/2012 12:41, Matteo Melideo ha scritto: > Thanks you Roozbeh. > Please use the following to ask questions. > > Best > > M. > Il 29/06/2012 11:08, Farahbod, Roozbeh ha scritto: >> Thank you Davide. >> >> Please find my additions (and few correction suggestions) attached. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Roozbeh >> >> From: Davide Dalle Carbonare > > >> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:19:51 +0200 >> To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu >> " >> > >> Subject: Re: [Fiware-tools] Questions for UC projects and GE providers >> >> Dear all, >> here are again the questions for UC projects and GE Providers. >> We've added a couple of points to the GE providers one. >> >> cheers, >> Davide >> >> >> On 15/06/2012 17:31, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: >>> Dear WP9ers, >>> >>> here are the preliminary questions we will use to collect the additional >>> information we need from Use Case projects and GE providers. >>> >>> deadline for your contributions is *Friday 22/06/2012 EOB* >>> >>> have a nice week-end and >>> Kind Regards, >>> Davide >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fiware-tools mailing list >>> Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.euhttp://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questions for GE providers-v2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Questions for the UCs-v2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 25600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 368 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 2 14:36:02 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:36:02 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Update and reminder Message-ID: <4FF195B2.2010908@eng.it> Dear All, this is to inform you that tomorrow the conference call is confirmed. In addition to this, I would like to recall on the catalogue that is now the high priority point to be discussed. 1) Today during the weekly conference call with the WP Leaders and Architects I have expressly requested the WP Leaders to populate the catalogue with the GEs and a specific Action Point as been raised. 2) We currently have seven GEs described in the catalogue and we have to make them described at the best of our possibilities in order to use these as reference implementations. On this respect the support of EAB to check this would be extremely helpful. 3) As there are some GEs that are not clear to whom they belong to I will send an e-mail to all the WP Leaders t know something more about these and discover who is the owner. Please let me know if you need some additional clarifications or it is ok with you. 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 2 14:47:47 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:47:47 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] *** IMPORTANT ** About the FI-WARE Catalogue Message-ID: <4FF19873.3040904@eng.it> Dear All, sorry for spamming you with this mail. The catalogue is now going to be filled with real GEs with the goal to be fully ready by the end of July with all the GEs available in the testbed. In this respect, there are currently in the catalogue three GEs that needs some revisions. Namely: - API Mediation - Service Description Repository - WSC. I would kindly ask the owner of these GEs to contact me or the Wp9 mailing list for further clarifications. Thanks a lot and regards, Matteo Melideo P.S: Further info about the catalogue can be found at the public page: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Tools.Catalogue -------------- 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 jeanpierre.lerouzic at orange.com Mon Jul 2 14:54:26 2012 From: jeanpierre.lerouzic at orange.com (jeanpierre.lerouzic at orange.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:54:26 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-tools] [Fiware] *** IMPORTANT ** About the FI-WARE Catalogue In-Reply-To: <4FF19873.3040904@eng.it> References: <4FF19873.3040904@eng.it> Message-ID: <2244_1341233667_4FF19A03_2244_3849_2_AE39E5C17FB7AF45883102E30247E3C3E62D@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear Matteo, I am the owner of API mediation and WSC enablers. The API mediation enabler code could be find here: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/frs/?group_id=10&release_id=47 The WSC code is intended to be delivered in a few months. Please let me know what is the issue with those two enablers and what you want me to do. Best regards, Jean-Pierre De : fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Matteo Melideo Envoy? : lundi 2 juillet 2012 14:48 ? : fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : WP9_fi-ware Objet : [Fiware] *** IMPORTANT ** About the FI-WARE Catalogue Dear All, sorry for spamming you with this mail. The catalogue is now going to be filled with real GEs with the goal to be fully ready by the end of July with all the GEs available in the testbed. In this respect, there are currently in the catalogue three GEs that needs some revisions. Namely: - API Mediation - Service Description Repository - WSC. I would kindly ask the owner of these GEs to contact me or the Wp9 mailing list for further clarifications. Thanks a lot and regards, Matteo Melideo P.S: Further info about the catalogue can be found at the public page: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Tools.Catalogue _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 3 10:24:19 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:24:19 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] CALL REMINDER Message-ID: <4FF2AC33.2010608@eng.it> Dear All, please remind the conference call at 11.30. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nUQCX_sgD591cIsxUfqrQOLji_t6Z74epsLIrPsquwk/edit PhC contact details as usual. Best M. -------------- 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 3 11:20:06 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:20:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] [Fiware] *** IMPORTANT ** About the FI-WARE Catalogue In-Reply-To: <2244_1341233667_4FF19A03_2244_3849_2_AE39E5C17FB7AF45883102E30247E3C3E62D@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <4FF19873.3040904@eng.it> <2244_1341233667_4FF19A03_2244_3849_2_AE39E5C17FB7AF45883102E30247E3C3E62D@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <4FF2B946.2080403@eng.it> Dear Jean-Pierre, could you unpublish for the moment WSC and make it again public as soon as it will be available? Thanks and regards Matteo Il 02/07/2012 14:54, jeanpierre.lerouzic at orange.com ha scritto: > > Dear Matteo, > > I am the owner of API mediation and WSC enablers. > > The API mediation enabler code could be find here: > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/frs/?group_id=10&release_id=47 > > The WSC code is intended to be delivered in a few months. > > Please let me know what is the issue with those two enablers and what > you want me to do. > > Best regards, > > Jean-Pierre > > *De :*fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *De la part de* Matteo Melideo > *Envoy? :* lundi 2 juillet 2012 14:48 > *? :* fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Cc :* WP9_fi-ware > *Objet :* [Fiware] *** IMPORTANT ** About the FI-WARE Catalogue > > Dear All, > sorry for spamming you with this mail. > The catalogue is now going to be filled with real GEs with the goal to > be fully ready by the end of July with all the GEs available in the > testbed. > > In this respect, there are currently in the catalogue three GEs that > needs some revisions. Namely: > - API Mediation > - Service Description Repository > - WSC. > > I would kindly ask the owner of these GEs to contact me or the Wp9 > mailing list for further clarifications. > > Thanks a lot and regards, > > Matteo Melideo > > P.S: > Further info about the catalogue can be found at the public page: > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Tools.Catalogue > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware mailing list > Fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware -------------- 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 3 14:20:35 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:20:35 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] [Fiware] *** NEWS ON THE CATALOGUE *** In-Reply-To: <71C0C7C7A712EE4CA636EDFD663B4E27048AE48DBC@DEWDFECCR09.wdf.sap.corp> References: <4FF2D21C.5060404@eng.it> <71C0C7C7A712EE4CA636EDFD663B4E27048AE48DBC@DEWDFECCR09.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <4FF2E393.6070403@eng.it> Dear Francesco, we will immediately check for this. Thanks and regards Matteo Il 03/07/2012 13:30, DI CERBO, Francesco ha scritto: > > Ciao Matteo, > > I am writing this email in English, so in case you can more easily > forward it to people in your team. > > I think to have submitted some time ago (maybe when you initially > advertised the catalogue) a description for a GE, called DB > Anonymizer, part of the security chapter contributions. Now I do not > see it anymore. Am I looking in the wrong place, or do I have to do > something more/different? > > Best regards, > > Francesco > > *From:*fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *Matteo Melideo > *Sent:* mardi 3 juillet 2012 13:06 > *To:* fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* [Fiware] *** NEWS ON THE CATALOGUE *** > > Dear All, > this is to inform you that at > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Tools.Catalogue > more additional information and tips are available on usage and > population of the FI-WARE Catalogue. > > Enjoy!!! > > Matteo Melideo on behalf of Tools Chapter > -------------- 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 Mon Jul 9 17:35:06 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:35:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conference call reminder Message-ID: <4FFAFA2A.6000004@eng.it> Dear All, this is to remind you the conference call tomorrow at 11.30 the link for the minutes will be sent right before the conference remember to use the new passcode: 9268 141# Regards, Davide From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 9 23:20:20 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:20:20 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: RE: FI-WARE Catalogue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FFB4B14.8090608@eng.it> Please address this issue asap!!! It is not possible the partners still find these problems. Thanks and regards Matteo -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: RE: FI-WARE Catalogue Data: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:24:45 +0200 Mittente: Amon, Peter A: matteo.melideo at eng.it CC: Laumer, Marcus , Riegel, Thomas Dear Metteo, thanks for asking about our GEs. Of course we all are super busy, but this is not the problem. ;-) We all tried to register to the page but we did not receive the confirmation e-mail. Without it, we cannot finalize the registration and submit our content to the catalogue. Therefore, can you please check with the admins, what can be done? Maybe they can manually activate the three accounts. The contact address on the web page (mail at example.com) does not seem to be very helpful. The respective e-mails addresses we tried to register are: - thomas.riegel at siemens.com - marcus.laumer.ext at siemens.com - p.amon at siemens.com Kind regards and thanks a lot in advance Peter _______________________________ Peter Amon Research and Technology Center Imaging and Computer Vision Siemens AG Corporate Technology - CT RTC ICV VIA-DE Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 (89) 636-54642 Fax: +49 (89) 636-51115 mailto:p.amon at siemens.com Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Peter Loescher, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Joe Kaeser, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Suess; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*Matteo Melideo [mailto:matteo.melideo at eng.it] *Sent:* Freitag, 6. Juli 2012 15:50 *To:* Laumer, Marcus; Amon, Peter; Riegel, Thomas *Subject:* FI-WARE Catalogue Dear Marcus, Peter and Thomas, I know you are ultra busy but I was wondering when you will be able to start describing your GEs into the Catalogue. Thanks a lot and 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 Jul 10 11:19:42 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:19:42 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conference call reminder In-Reply-To: <4FFAFA2A.6000004@eng.it> References: <4FFAFA2A.6000004@eng.it> Message-ID: <4FFBF3AE.2010909@eng.it> minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qfKtutmPM6JCMDbrpDIRhr2wx36TkOAQDtDisYGTeMc/edit BR Davide On 09/07/2012 17:35, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: > Dear All, > this is to remind you the conference call tomorrow at 11.30 > > the link for the minutes will be sent right before the conference > > remember to use the new passcode: 9268 141# > > 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 Jul 10 14:56:42 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:56:42 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Questionnaire from FINSENY uploaded Message-ID: <4FFC268A.3030207@eng.it> Dear All, I've new received, reviewed and uploaded the questionnaire from FINSENY. You can find it along with the others on the forge. I've updated the names of the files into that folder in order to keep the questionnaires for GEs separated from the onces from UCs. Please keep the same name prefix when you upload something. GE - [GE name] - [Partner] UC - [UC name] BR Davide From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Mon Jul 16 10:20:06 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:20:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] OUTSMART (Berlin) uploaded on the forge Message-ID: <5003CEB6.7090503@eng.it> Dear All, I've uploaded the questionnaire sent back by Outsmart in relation to their use case in Berlin (waste management) @ Osama, Roozbeh, Marcel: I've seen something interesting for the testing/monitoring aspects, on the last questions. BR Davide From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 16 15:26:15 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:26:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Call for new name Message-ID: <50041677.4030400@eng.it> Dear All, it is urgent we found a new and more appealing name for our environment. DevComE is not any more sustainable. Any advice will be more than welcome and it would be great to have it by end of July. Thanks and 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 16 16:32:26 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:32:26 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Contribution to Wp2 Message-ID: <500425FA.9040606@eng.it> Dear All, please red the following contribution and then focus on what I wrote in the section dedicated to Tools. Any comment or suggestion is more than welcome before the 19th of July. Best regards Matteo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ThirdpartyinnovationenablementinFI-WARE.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61440 bytes Desc: not available 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 Jul 17 09:48:19 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:48:19 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conference call reminder Message-ID: <500518C3.5080800@eng.it> Dear All, this is to remind you the conference call today at 11.30 the link for the minutes will be sent right before the conference remember to use the new passcode: 9268 141# Regards, Davide From MARCEL at il.ibm.com Tue Jul 17 10:56:23 2012 From: MARCEL at il.ibm.com (Marcel Zalmanovici) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:56:23 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-tools] OUTSMART (Berlin) uploaded on the forge In-Reply-To: <5003CEB6.7090503@eng.it> References: <5003CEB6.7090503@eng.it> Message-ID: Hi Davide, >From their responses to Q8, it would seem that they could benefit from network traffic monitoring/analysis. Both response time and total number of messages per period of time metrics are already available for them. (if they run Linux. for Windows there might be a need to adjust the output of the tcpdump alternative) If by 'data sources' they mean a large number of computers, then currently we do not have a good answer for that type of monitoring. Marcel From: Davide Dalle Carbonare To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 16/07/2012 11:20 AM Subject: [Fiware-tools] OUTSMART (Berlin) uploaded on the forge Sent by: fiware-tools-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear All, I've uploaded the questionnaire sent back by Outsmart in relation to their use case in Berlin (waste management) @ Osama, Roozbeh, Marcel: I've seen something interesting for the testing/monitoring aspects, on the last questions. BR 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 Jul 17 11:11:58 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:11:58 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] OUTSMART (Berlin) uploaded on the forge In-Reply-To: References: <5003CEB6.7090503@eng.it> Message-ID: <50052C5E.4060109@eng.it> Hi Marcel, this afternoon I'll attend to a conf call organized by Oursmart and with one representative per WP of FI-WARE this is just the first step of the collaboration with this UC that will involve you for the topics you mentioned in your mail. let's discuss this during the conf call ... BR Davide On 17/07/2012 10:56, Marcel Zalmanovici wrote: > Hi Davide, > > From their responses to Q8, it would seem that they could benefit from > network traffic monitoring/analysis. > Both response time and total number of messages per period of time > metrics are already available for them. > (if they run Linux. for Windows there might be a need to adjust the > output of the tcpdump alternative) > > If by 'data sources' they mean a large number of computers, then > currently we do not have a good answer for that type of monitoring. > > Marcel > > > > From: Davide Dalle Carbonare > To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu" , > Date: 16/07/2012 11:20 AM > Subject: [Fiware-tools] OUTSMART (Berlin) uploaded on the forge > Sent by: fiware-tools-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Dear All, > I've uploaded the questionnaire sent back by Outsmart > in relation to their use case in Berlin (waste management) > > @ Osama, Roozbeh, Marcel: > I've seen something interesting for the testing/monitoring > aspects, on the last questions. > > BR > 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 Jul 17 11:24:17 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:24:17 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conference call reminder In-Reply-To: <500518C3.5080800@eng.it> References: <500518C3.5080800@eng.it> Message-ID: <50052F41.1090302@eng.it> Minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SzrhqHOkp_zFkicchL3JkI16ga-7EKsT5NYdZiePmZ8/edit turn your name black if attending. BR Davide On 17/07/2012 09:48, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: > Dear All, > this is to remind you the conference call today at 11.30 > > the link for the minutes will be sent right before the conference > > remember to use the new passcode: 9268 141# > > 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 jesus.gorronogoitia at atosresearch.eu Tue Jul 17 12:36:26 2012 From: jesus.gorronogoitia at atosresearch.eu (Yosu =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gorro=F1ogoitia?=) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:36:26 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Holidays Message-ID: <1342521386.3106.9.camel@avalon.atos.net> Dear All, i will be off the office of holidays from 30th July to 17th August. Regards Yosu ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Wed Jul 18 10:01:50 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:01:50 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] *** URGENT *** Fwd: Contribution to Wp2 In-Reply-To: <500425FA.9040606@eng.it> References: <500425FA.9040606@eng.it> Message-ID: <50066D6E.1030704@eng.it> Dear All, so far I have received no comments back!!! Probably because this mail was marked as SPAM ;-) Thanks and regards Matteo -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: Contribution to Wp2 Data: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:32:26 +0200 Mittente: Matteo Melideo Rispondi-a: matteo.melideo at eng.it Organizzazione: Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. A: WP9_fi-ware Dear All, please red the following contribution and then focus on what I wrote in the section dedicated to Tools. Any comment or suggestion is more than welcome before the 19th of July. Best regards Matteo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ThirdpartyinnovationenablementinFI-WARE.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61440 bytes Desc: not available 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Wed Jul 18 10:11:29 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:11:29 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] *** EXTREMELY URGENT *** Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Revision of Technical Roadmap deliverable In-Reply-To: <50065782.60809@tid.es> References: <50065782.60809@tid.es> Message-ID: <50066FB1.8010302@eng.it> Dear All, as you can read below the Technical Roadmap deliverable is due by end of July as well. As you can see one of the approached proposed by Juanjo (i.e. (a) ) is in line with the one we discussed yesterday. The idea, as we have a very little time, is to review the list of functionalities and in case further detail these, to do the mapping between the functionalities and the user stories and prioritize our functions motivating the reasons for this. Please let's start to work on it since now. Thanks and regards, Matteo -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] Revision of Technical Roadmap deliverable Data: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:28:18 +0200 Mittente: Juanjo Hierro A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi all, We need to close how are going to re-structure the Technical Roadmap deliverable in order to re-submit it by end of July. This means we need to decide how links to Features on the Wiki will be established. We will provide concrete editorial guidelines but, prior to that, we would like to discuss with you on what approach to follow. Essentially we have two options: a) Create a table per section linked to each major release within the Technical Roadmap wiki page of each chapter, where we will list the Features supported for each GE in that major release (listing of the Features would be links to the corresponding Wiki pages). That table may look like the following one for the Data chapter (the example is only illustrative): FI-WARE GE Supported Features Publish/Subscribe Broker FIWARE.EPIC.Data.PublishSubscribe.UpdateOperation , FIWARE.EPIC.Data.PublishSubscribe.QueryLanguage , FIWARE.EPIC.Data.PublishSubscribe.Subsciprion&Notification , .... BigData Analysis FIWARE.Feature.Data.BigData-Analysis.MapReduceExtensions , FIWARE.Feature.Data.BigData-Analysis.Cluster , .... .... ... b) Create a table per section linked to each major release within the Technical Roadmap wiki page of each chapter, where we will provide a pointer to the "Features" section in the "Materializing the FI-WARE Vision" part of the wiki for each GE. Then structure that "Features" section of a given GE in the "Materializing the FI-WARE Vision" part of the wiki so that Features are classified into subsections corresponding to major releases. That table may look like the following one for the Data chapter (note that we would still need to create the subsections within the Features section linked here, each subsection matching a different major releases): FI-WARE GE Supported Features Publish/Subscribe Broker Publish/Subscribe Broker GE Features BigData Analysis BigData Analysis GE Features .... ... I would go for option a) but I would like to hear your opinions. Please cast your preference in the following doodle before this friday: http://www.doodle.com/vy97txn7n4qybucw Based on results on the poll we will generate guidelines that we will share with you during next joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall. 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) 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- 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 Thu Jul 19 11:29:02 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:29:02 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] BigData GE questionnaire uploades Message-ID: <5007D35E.7020506@eng.it> Dear all, as from the mail subject I've uploaded into the forge the questionnaire on Big Data GE. please take a look at it ad contact the owner in case of additional questions. cheers, Davide From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Fri Jul 20 12:12:05 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:12:05 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] EXTREMELY URGENT *** TO DO BY 25th JULY 2012 Message-ID: <50092EF5.6000000@eng.it> Dear Partners, this message is to ask you to contribute on the Roadmap. As requested by the project coordinator, we have to report into the roadmap the features, the rationale, and the references to the user stories per feature. For the existing tools Trace Analyser, Prosa and SoPeCo what is the baseline in terms of functionalities and make clear what are those developed within Fi-WARE. Here is the collaborative document to use https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBN7Jwnf54NexZeMLNtbtyl3YHj57M8VGRpvelAPksA/edit Please follow the structure of the already inserted items: 1 - complete the list of features, that are available from the already existing tool (base line), or developed in the context of FI-WARE. 2 - For each feature developed in FI-WARE report the links to the related tickets from the Backlog Management tracker. 3 - If you discover that some ticket (user story) is missing, create it. thank you very much for this contribution. We must have everything done by next *Wednesday 25th* ... we can't miss this date! thank you and Best Regards Davide PS: all next week I'll have a very limited access to the emails, so please, for urgent messages, put also Matteo in copy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Mon Jul 23 13:26:19 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:26:19 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] WPL\WPA minutes Message-ID: <500D34DB.9060902@eng.it> Dear All, the minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e1wzsOolpqhVGc6e6DmhU9ek9Ru9gJIMAF4YuLo7AMs/edit?pli=1# Talk to you tomorrow. best regards Matteo P.S. On the Roadmap I hope to have a final answer today by Juanjo and Miguel -------------- 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 24 10:13:11 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:13:11 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: [Fiware-wpl] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project In-Reply-To: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> References: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> Message-ID: <500E5917.6030204@eng.it> -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project Data: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:14:00 +0200 Mittente: Juanjo Hierro A: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi all, I have had a confcall with our PO where we have addressed a number of important issues and have discussed about general status of the project and the program. This email is trying to share with you information about what has been discussed. Don't hesitate to share this information with members of your respective chapter/WP teams. As I have already reported in a previous mail, the first thing we discussed had to do with how to manage deliverables linked to software and Installation/Administration Guides marked as PP. I hope this solves major concerns raised by some of the partners. Second point that was addressed had to do with measurements defined to avoid further delays in meeting defined deadlines. PO is backing us on the decision taken and welcome them. Even in the case that TID were not legally able to reject submission of financial/cost statements (something he doubts because he believes it can), he believes that TID not only can but must identify financial/costs reports TID believes are not in line with what is the actual work carried out and the EC would take decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I shared with the PO that we believe that all partners will do their best to comply with the defined milestones not just to avoid implementation of the defined measurements but for the sake of the project. I believe that the PO feels confident about the status but let's try not to let him down. I reported about the status of the Testbed and the contingency plan that we put in place. He seemed to be fine with that. I asked him about the 1st year FI-WARE Review Report and he told me that we shouldn't expect this earlier than mid August. I explained Arian our plans regarding resubmission of the Technical Roadmap (in line with what we proposed during the 1st year FI-WARE Review meeting) and he seemed to be fine with them. He confirmed the relevance of the white paper describing the encompassing usage of GEs. I already announced him that it would be rather difficult to get it finished by the end of July because we are all so busy. It seemed that his major concern was to to make sure it be ready before an Information Day regarding the phase 2 of the FI-PPP that the EC has planned by August 30 in Brussels. I reported also that we were working hard on the deliverable regarding 3rd party innovation enablement and trying to get it ready by end of July or, if not, just a few days later. He seemed to be happy with that. Regarding results of the 1st Open Call, Arian expects that the next step will be that we elaborate an amendment of the DoW which incorporates the new partners and their description of work. However, we agreed that such DoW amendment should try to go after the one where we will try to incorporate all pending changes which were summarized and agreed during the last PCC meetings. He was ok with the planning of the second Open Call but would like to see the third Open Call later than what we proposed (January next year instead of end of October) in order to allow incorporation of topics that may be demanded by UC trials selected in phase 2 (hearings are planned to end beginning of December this year). I proposed him the possibility to formulate the 2nd Open Call so that it may consider topics with different closing dates for final publication of Epics and different submission deadlines. This would allow to incorporate topics like Security in this 2nd Open Call. Arian believes this may be feasible. Definitively, I will propose discussing this during the confcall of the FI-PPP AB that will take place this week. I think this was all. I'm happy to respond any question that you may have. 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) 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 _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 24 10:37:38 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:37:38 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Conference call reminder and small excercise Message-ID: <500E5ED2.5030408@eng.it> The link to the minutes is provided below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SzrhqHOkp_zFkicchL3JkI16ga-7EKsT5NYdZiePmZ8/edit In addition to this before the conference call I would like to have from you a brief summery of what you are doing, the status of your activities and what are planning to do in August. Please report this in the section *status* reported in the minutes. Thanks and talk to you soon 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 matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 24 15:42:13 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:42:13 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] [Fiware-apps] IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and the Catalogue In-Reply-To: References: <1491C91A94302A448D73CD9C6B7A782046C02D0EDE@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> <500E6A9C.7070105@eng.it> Message-ID: <500EA635.8070107@eng.it> Hi Torsten, first of all thank you for this mail as this is a very valid approach to better explain the idea behind the catalogue. I also think that your explanation is very clear. However, I want to try to provide some additional clarifications apologising for the mail a bit long. You wrote: "You see a GE as a specific piece of code (or also a concrete instance exposing their services on certain endpoints?) that can be used by the developer to incorporate it within new applications." We deliberately decided to not provide constraints or boundaries to this as we know that each Chapter will offer their GEs in different ways. In this respect, I know that often I could talk nonsense in describing what a GE is (sorry about that) but my problem is that I cannot give an example "one size fits all". :-( But, being very pragmatic, I want to recall your text. Specifically, you wrote: 1) "a GE is a collection of generic functionalities, which can be accessed by a set of API (Open Specifications). Composition of services is such a generic functionality" --> agree 100% and if these open specifications are open then you can reference these in the GE "Download" section of the catalogue to be downloaded.Other info that can be added in the Download section are downloadable files which relate to the Generic Enabler, for example software libraries (if any), executable code (if any) or PDF-documents (if any). 2) if these API are available as services in the Testbed then you have to specify this in the GE "Instance" section of the Catalogue together with some additional info, for instance, on terms of use (if any). 3) in the Documentation "you write the juicy technical details directed to the coder who should use the GE. It should be detailed enough for a programmer to know how to e.g. include parameters in an API call etc. This can be achieved by linking to the Generic Enabler's architecture description and Open API, provided that they are detailed enough to serve this purpose. In the documentation part you are encouraged to link to downloadable libraries etc. that can make it easier for the developer to write code. Example code can also be written on this page." Then you wrote, .. "It now happens that we have 4 different implementations (different mechanisms, paradigms, technologies) for this GE." If this means that the same set of API mentioned before are implemented with four different approaches (i.e Mashup Composition, Data-driven Composition, Process-driven Composition and Semantic-driven Composition), this means that in the catalogue this will be reflected like that: - In the GE "Instances" section of the Catalogue, you will have to specify where the instances of the four different composition approaches are + info about the licence of use for each of these + Files which are only relevant for each specific instance. - In the GE "Download" section of the Catalogue,you will provide the open specification and (if available) you can add downloadable files which relate to the Generic Enabler, for example software libraries, executable code or PDF-documents. These files should be relevant for any instance of the GE. - in the GE "Documentation" section of the Catalogue you write the juicy technical details directed to the coder who should use each of the different composition tools. It should be detailed enough for a programmer to know how to e.g. include parameters in an API call etc. This can be achieved by linking to the Generic Enabler's architecture description and Open API, provided that they are detailed enough to serve this purpose. Example code can also be written on this page. The last option is that you can have GE Open Specification like the one you described (i.e. Composition of services) but the four different approaches that partially implement these open specifications. In this case my suggestion is the following: provide four different GEs entries in the Catalogue explaining briefly in each GE "Instance" section of the catalogue what part of the specifications are implemented recalling to the open specification document and more extensively in the Documentation section what part of the specifications have been implemented. I do not know if this clarify a bit more or, on the contrary, increases the confusion. However, this is to say that each WP Leader or Architects knows better than us how to sell and advertise the GEs belonging to their chapter in order to make them appealing and interesting for the potential stakeholders. In fact, as you may have noticed, we did not provide any sort of indication on what a GE is but just a place where to describe this in order to be exploited as better as possible. As you noticed I did not talk about what is a GEs (I am not the more appropriate person to do this and it is not important for me), what I know if that the UC projects want to use these GEs in their scenarios and want to have a unique, coherent and easy to navigate place where it is possible to browse the GEs and understand what these GEs are, where they are and how to use these. :-) Thanks again and best regards Matteo Il 24/07/2012 13:11, Leidig, Torsten ha scritto: > > Hi Matteo, > > I think there is still a lot of confusion. I hate to re- open the > discussion what a GE actually is. For WP3 we more or less agreed, that > a GE is a collection of generic functionalities, which can be accessed > by a set of API (Open Specifications). Composition of services is > such a generic functionality. It now happens that we have 4 different > implementations (different mechanisms, paradigms, technologies) for > this GE. On top of this very generic GE one can have specific GE, > which reduces the options for the technologies and APIs. We haven't > done this yet for the Composition but possible specific GE could be > Mashup Composition, Data-driven Composition, Process-driven > Composition, and Semantic-driven Composition. What we currently have > is 4 different implementations of the GE made from assets of the > individual partners. Some of them are only provided as a service (no > code will be available for developers) some are Open Source and the > code could be downloaded to run an own instance. > > I know other chapters (esp. Ch 9 ) has a slightly different view. You > see a GE as a specific piece of code (or also a concrete instance > exposing their services on certain endpoints?) that can be used by the > developer to incorporate it within new applications. > > Therefore a sentence like "sell and advertise a GE" via the Catalog > raises confusion. > > To make it very explicit: > > Should we make an entry in the catalog even if we provide only a > service on demand and do not deliver any code or an instance in the > Testbed infrastructure? > > Regards, > > Torsten > > Dr. Torsten Leidig > > SAP Research Center CEC Karlsruhe > > SAP AG > > Vincenz-Prie?nitz-Str. 1 > > 76131 Karlsruhe > > T +49 6227 7 52535 > > F +49 6227 78 29753 > > E torsten.leidig at sap.com > > http://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. > > *From:*fiware-apps-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-apps-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *Matteo > Melideo > *Sent:* Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 11:28 > *To:* Javier Soriano (FI-UPM) > *Cc:* fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu; Alvaro Arranz; Dalle Carbonare Davide > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-apps] IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and > the Catalogue > > Dear Javier, > sorry if I jump into the discussion but this is something me, as > leader of the Wp9 should clarify. > > What a GE is will be up to each GE owner and each wp leader. If the > Ericsson Composition Engine can be used a a stand alone application > why not considering it a GE? If there is an instance of the engine > running on the Testbed, why not considering this as a GE? It will be > the GE providers (in line with the WP rule and policy) which should > decide the strategy on what publish and how. > > The Catalogue is just a place where it is possible to *_sell and > advertise_* about the GEs the PPP stakeholders and not only. In this > respect, we suggested to publish before those GEs available on the > Testbed and later the other just to be aligned with the Testbed and > avoid giving false expectations. > > I hope this clarify > > Best > > Matteo Melideo > > Il 24/07/2012 11:14, Javier Soriano (FI-UPM) ha scritto: > > Dear Uwe, > > How can a GE (an abstract artefact) be available on the FIWARE > Testbed? > > Am I wrong or is an instance of the GE (e.g. WireCloud Mashup > Platform) and not the GE itself (e.g. Composition Editor GE) what > have to be made available on the FIWARE Testbed? > > Who is/are the owner/s of both the Composition Editor GE and the > Composition Execution Engine GE? Ericsson as Task leader? Sorry if > I was wrong and should not have uploaded the descriptions :-( > > Best regards, > > Javier > > 2012/7/24 Riss, Uwe > > > Dear Javier, > > I have checked the WPL/W > > > > PA minutes, which say that GE owners are expected to "submit > description of GEs that will be available on the FI-WARE Testbed". > > That is the status. > > Best regards, > > Uwe > > *From:*Javier Soriano (FI-UPM) [mailto:jsoriano at fi.upm.es > ] > *Sent:* Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 09:35 > *To:* Leidig, Torsten; Riss, Uwe > *Cc:* fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu > ; Rafael Fern?ndez; Alvaro Arranz > > > *Subject:* IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and the Catalogue > > Dear Uwe, Torsten, dear colleagues, > > Unfortunately, no one from UPM can attend today's conf call. We > will any case catch up through the minutes. > > Nevertheless, we have some questions and concerns regarding a > recent mail we've received (yesterday) from Osama Sammodi (from > WP9). Osama asked us to provide in the FIWARE catalogue > (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/) information for the > Composition Editor GE we are responsible for. > > Uwe, could you please include this matter in the agenda for > today's conf call. End of July is a hard deadline to get it done. > > I think there is a general misunderstanding because most of the > entries in the catalogue represents products (i.e. instances) > instead of GEs on their own. > > For example, concerning WP3, Ericsson has already added the > following entry: > > --- > > > Ericsson Composition Engine > (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/104) > > The Ericsson Composition Engine is a toolset for creating and > executing composed services and applications. It consists of a > Composition Editor and an Execution Engine. > > --- > > Which clearly (at least for me) represents one instance of the > Composition Execution Engine GE, but not the GE itself. Moreover, > the description references the actual GEs that instance > "implements": Composition Editor and Execution Engine. Am I wrong? > > The same occurs with other entries. For example: > > CEP GE refers to IBM technology: > http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/146 > > BigData Analysis refers to some components (SAMSON Platform, > MongoDB, Apache HDFS): http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/158 > > etc. > > The entries for "Service Description Repository" and > "Marketplace", IMHO, are by far the best examples and reflect > accurately the concept of GE. We should follow the same schema for > the rest of GEs, shouldn't we? > > For the time being, in order progress in the matter, I have > created two entries: > > > Composition Editor > (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/166) > > UNPUBLISHED > > This Generic Enabler helps either the service provider or the end > user (prosumer) to create composed services (from the back-end > perspective) and application mashups (from the front-end > perspective), respectively, in a graphical way > > APPLICATIONS/SERVICES ECOSYSTEMS AND DELIVERY FRAMEWORK > > > Composition Execution Engine > (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/170) > > UNPUBLISHED > > Exposes and executes the composed services which result from using > the Composition Editor Generic Enabler or are defined in a > execution language supported by the tool > > APPLICATIONS/SERVICES ECOSYSTEMS AND DELIVERY FRAMEWORK > > Please find attached a doc with most of the content I've created > for each entry. If you want to change or add anything, please let > me know. For the time being, they are "under revision" and I'm not > sure if you can edit my entries (to change the description of the > GEs, to include new instances, etc.) or even see them. If > necessary, I can share with you my credentials (user/password) > > I'm not sure about what is expected to be included in the > "downloads" and the "documentation" sections: > downloads/documentation regarding the GE? downloads/documentation > regarding each instance? For example, in > > > Ericsson Composition Engine > (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/104) > > Ericsson has included the "Ericsson Composition Engine, Advanced > Composition Editor User's Guide", which refers to an instance of > the Composition Execution Engine GE. Am I wrong? > > Best regards, > > Javier > > -- > ************************************************ > Dr. Javier Soriano > Dept. Lenguajes y Sistemas Inform?ticos > e Ingenier?a de Software > Facultad de Inform?tica > Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid > Campus de Montegancedo > 28660 - Boadilla del Monte, Madrid > Spain > ************************************************ > --------------------- > AVISO LEGAL: > Este correo electr?nico y cualquier documento adjunto contienen > informaci?n confidencial destinada para ser le?da exclusivamente > por el destinatario. Su contenido no constituye un compromiso para > la Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid salvo ratificaci?n escrita > por ambas partes. Queda prohibida la reproducci?n, publicaci?n, > divulgaci?n, total o parcial del mensaje as? como el uso o reenv?o > no autorizado por el emisor. En caso de recibir el mensaje por > error, se ruega su comunicaci?n al remitente lo antes posible y su > posterior eliminaci?n. Gracias. > > DISCLAIMER: > This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information > for the exclusive use of the recipient.Its contents do not > constitute a commitment by Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid > except where provided for in a signed agreement between both > parties. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, forwarding or > dissemination, either whole or partial, is expressly prohibited. > If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please > notify the sender as soon as possible and delete it afterwards. > Thank you. > > *Dr. Uwe Riss** > *Senior Researcher, Internet Applications & Services | SAP > Research Karlsruhe > > *SAP AG* | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | > Germany > > T +49 6227 7-70212 | F +49 6227 > 78-26158 | M +49 151 16810936 > | mailto:uwe.riss at sap.com > > > www.sap.com > > > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure > Statements:__http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx > > Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschaeftsgeheimnisse oder > sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese > E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme > des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail > ausdruecklich 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. > > > > -- > ************************************************ > Dr. Javier Soriano > Dept. Lenguajes y Sistemas Inform?ticos > e Ingenier?a de Software > Facultad de Inform?tica > Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid > Campus de Montegancedo > 28660 - Boadilla del Monte, Madrid > Spain > ************************************************ > --------------------- > AVISO LEGAL: > Este correo electr?nico y cualquier documento adjunto contienen > informaci?n confidencial destinada para ser le?da exclusivamente por > el destinatario. Su contenido no constituye un compromiso para la > Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid salvo ratificaci?n escrita por ambas > partes. Queda prohibida la reproducci?n, publicaci?n, divulgaci?n, > total o parcial del mensaje as? como el uso o reenv?o no autorizado > por el emisor. En caso de recibir el mensaje por error, se ruega su > comunicaci?n al remitente lo antes posible y su posterior eliminaci?n. > Gracias. > > DISCLAIMER: > This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information for > the exclusive use of the recipient.Its contents do not constitute a > commitment by Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid except where provided > for in a signed agreement between both parties. Any unauthorised > disclosure, use, forwarding or dissemination, either whole or partial, > is expressly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of the > message, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete it > afterwards. Thank you. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-apps mailing list > Fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-apps > -------------- 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 roozbeh.farahbod at sap.com Wed Jul 25 09:42:00 2012 From: roozbeh.farahbod at sap.com (Farahbod, Roozbeh) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:42:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Questionnaire for Instant Mobility Message-ID: Hi all, I have uploaded the answers to the questionnaire from Instant Mobility to the forge. I have asked for more explanation on question 7. Cheers, Roozbeh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From torsten.leidig at sap.com Wed Jul 25 10:54:32 2012 From: torsten.leidig at sap.com (Leidig, Torsten) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:54:32 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] [Fiware-apps] IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and the Catalogue In-Reply-To: <500EA635.8070107@eng.it> References: <1491C91A94302A448D73CD9C6B7A782046C02D0EDE@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp> <500E6A9C.7070105@eng.it> <500EA635.8070107@eng.it> Message-ID: Hi Matteo, Thanks very much for your explanations and guidelines. I think for the Composition Enablers it would be best to describe each of them in an own entry. However, I would recommend to use the term Enabler instead of Generic Enabler in the user interface of the catalog. Best regards, Torsten From: Matteo Melideo [mailto:matteo.melideo at eng.it] Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 15:42 To: Leidig, Torsten Cc: Javier Soriano (FI-UPM); fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu; Alvaro Arranz; Dalle Carbonare Davide; WP9_fi-ware Subject: Re: [Fiware-apps] IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and the Catalogue Hi Torsten, first of all thank you for this mail as this is a very valid approach to better explain the idea behind the catalogue. I also think that your explanation is very clear. However, I want to try to provide some additional clarifications apologising for the mail a bit long. You wrote: "You see a GE as a specific piece of code (or also a concrete instance exposing their services on certain endpoints?) that can be used by the developer to incorporate it within new applications." We deliberately decided to not provide constraints or boundaries to this as we know that each Chapter will offer their GEs in different ways. In this respect, I know that often I could talk nonsense in describing what a GE is (sorry about that) but my problem is that I cannot give an example "one size fits all". :-( But, being very pragmatic, I want to recall your text. Specifically, you wrote: 1) "a GE is a collection of generic functionalities, which can be accessed by a set of API (Open Specifications). Composition of services is such a generic functionality" --> agree 100% and if these open specifications are open then you can reference these in the GE "Download" section of the catalogue to be downloaded. Other info that can be added in the Download section are downloadable files which relate to the Generic Enabler, for example software libraries (if any), executable code (if any) or PDF-documents (if any). 2) if these API are available as services in the Testbed then you have to specify this in the GE "Instance" section of the Catalogue together with some additional info, for instance, on terms of use (if any). 3) in the Documentation "you write the juicy technical details directed to the coder who should use the GE. It should be detailed enough for a programmer to know how to e.g. include parameters in an API call etc. This can be achieved by linking to the Generic Enabler's architecture description and Open API, provided that they are detailed enough to serve this purpose. In the documentation part you are encouraged to link to downloadable libraries etc. that can make it easier for the developer to write code. Example code can also be written on this page." Then you wrote, .. " It now happens that we have 4 different implementations (different mechanisms, paradigms, technologies) for this GE." If this means that the same set of API mentioned before are implemented with four different approaches (i.e Mashup Composition, Data-driven Composition, Process-driven Composition and Semantic-driven Composition), this means that in the catalogue this will be reflected like that: - In the GE "Instances" section of the Catalogue, you will have to specify where the instances of the four different composition approaches are + info about the licence of use for each of these + Files which are only relevant for each specific instance. - In the GE "Download" section of the Catalogue,you will provide the open specification and (if available) you can add downloadable files which relate to the Generic Enabler, for example software libraries, executable code or PDF-documents. These files should be relevant for any instance of the GE. - in the GE "Documentation" section of the Catalogue you write the juicy technical details directed to the coder who should use each of the different composition tools. It should be detailed enough for a programmer to know how to e.g. include parameters in an API call etc. This can be achieved by linking to the Generic Enabler's architecture description and Open API, provided that they are detailed enough to serve this purpose. Example code can also be written on this page. The last option is that you can have GE Open Specification like the one you described (i.e. Composition of services) but the four different approaches that partially implement these open specifications. In this case my suggestion is the following: provide four different GEs entries in the Catalogue explaining briefly in each GE "Instance" section of the catalogue what part of the specifications are implemented recalling to the open specification document and more extensively in the Documentation section what part of the specifications have been implemented. I do not know if this clarify a bit more or, on the contrary, increases the confusion. However, this is to say that each WP Leader or Architects knows better than us how to sell and advertise the GEs belonging to their chapter in order to make them appealing and interesting for the potential stakeholders. In fact, as you may have noticed, we did not provide any sort of indication on what a GE is but just a place where to describe this in order to be exploited as better as possible. As you noticed I did not talk about what is a GEs (I am not the more appropriate person to do this and it is not important for me), what I know if that the UC projects want to use these GEs in their scenarios and want to have a unique, coherent and easy to navigate place where it is possible to browse the GEs and understand what these GEs are, where they are and how to use these. :-) Thanks again and best regards Matteo Il 24/07/2012 13:11, Leidig, Torsten ha scritto: Hi Matteo, I think there is still a lot of confusion. I hate to re- open the discussion what a GE actually is. For WP3 we more or less agreed, that a GE is a collection of generic functionalities, which can be accessed by a set of API (Open Specifications). Composition of services is such a generic functionality. It now happens that we have 4 different implementations (different mechanisms, paradigms, technologies) for this GE. On top of this very generic GE one can have specific GE, which reduces the options for the technologies and APIs. We haven't done this yet for the Composition but possible specific GE could be Mashup Composition, Data-driven Composition, Process-driven Composition, and Semantic-driven Composition. What we currently have is 4 different implementations of the GE made from assets of the individual partners. Some of them are only provided as a service (no code will be available for developers) some are Open Source and the code could be downloaded to run an own instance. I know other chapters (esp. Ch 9 ) has a slightly different view. You see a GE as a specific piece of code (or also a concrete instance exposing their services on certain endpoints?) that can be used by the developer to incorporate it within new applications. Therefore a sentence like "sell and advertise a GE" via the Catalog raises confusion. To make it very explicit: Should we make an entry in the catalog even if we provide only a service on demand and do not deliver any code or an instance in the Testbed infrastructure? Regards, Torsten Dr. Torsten Leidig SAP Research Center CEC Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Prie?nitz-Str. 1 76131 Karlsruhe T +49 6227 7 52535 F +49 6227 78 29753 E torsten.leidig at sap.com http://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. From: fiware-apps-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-apps-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Matteo Melideo Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 11:28 To: Javier Soriano (FI-UPM) Cc: fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu; Alvaro Arranz; Dalle Carbonare Davide Subject: Re: [Fiware-apps] IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and the Catalogue Dear Javier, sorry if I jump into the discussion but this is something me, as leader of the Wp9 should clarify. What a GE is will be up to each GE owner and each wp leader. If the Ericsson Composition Engine can be used a a stand alone application why not considering it a GE? If there is an instance of the engine running on the Testbed, why not considering this as a GE? It will be the GE providers (in line with the WP rule and policy) which should decide the strategy on what publish and how. The Catalogue is just a place where it is possible to sell and advertise about the GEs the PPP stakeholders and not only. In this respect, we suggested to publish before those GEs available on the Testbed and later the other just to be aligned with the Testbed and avoid giving false expectations. I hope this clarify Best Matteo Melideo Il 24/07/2012 11:14, Javier Soriano (FI-UPM) ha scritto: Dear Uwe, How can a GE (an abstract artefact) be available on the FIWARE Testbed? Am I wrong or is an instance of the GE (e.g. WireCloud Mashup Platform) and not the GE itself (e.g. Composition Editor GE) what have to be made available on the FIWARE Testbed? Who is/are the owner/s of both the Composition Editor GE and the Composition Execution Engine GE? Ericsson as Task leader? Sorry if I was wrong and should not have uploaded the descriptions :-( Best regards, Javier 2012/7/24 Riss, Uwe > Dear Javier, I have checked the WPL/W PA minutes, which say that GE owners are expected to "submit description of GEs that will be available on the FI-WARE Testbed". That is the status. Best regards, Uwe From: Javier Soriano (FI-UPM) [mailto:jsoriano at fi.upm.es] Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 09:35 To: Leidig, Torsten; Riss, Uwe Cc: fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu; Rafael Fern?ndez; Alvaro Arranz Subject: IMPORTANT: About WP3 Composition GEs and the Catalogue Dear Uwe, Torsten, dear colleagues, Unfortunately, no one from UPM can attend today's conf call. We will any case catch up through the minutes. Nevertheless, we have some questions and concerns regarding a recent mail we've received (yesterday) from Osama Sammodi (from WP9). Osama asked us to provide in the FIWARE catalogue ( http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/) information for the Composition Editor GE we are responsible for. Uwe, could you please include this matter in the agenda for today's conf call. End of July is a hard deadline to get it done. I think there is a general misunderstanding because most of the entries in the catalogue represents products (i.e. instances) instead of GEs on their own. For example, concerning WP3, Ericsson has already added the following entry: --- Ericsson Composition Engine (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/104) The Ericsson Composition Engine is a toolset for creating and executing composed services and applications. It consists of a Composition Editor and an Execution Engine. --- Which clearly (at least for me) represents one instance of the Composition Execution Engine GE, but not the GE itself. Moreover, the description references the actual GEs that instance "implements": Composition Editor and Execution Engine. Am I wrong? The same occurs with other entries. For example: CEP GE refers to IBM technology: http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/146 BigData Analysis refers to some components (SAMSON Platform, MongoDB, Apache HDFS): http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/158 etc. The entries for "Service Description Repository" and "Marketplace", IMHO, are by far the best examples and reflect accurately the concept of GE. We should follow the same schema for the rest of GEs, shouldn't we? For the time being, in order progress in the matter, I have created two entries: Composition Editor (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/166) UNPUBLISHED This Generic Enabler helps either the service provider or the end user (prosumer) to create composed services (from the back-end perspective) and application mashups (from the front-end perspective), respectively, in a graphical way APPLICATIONS/SERVICES ECOSYSTEMS AND DELIVERY FRAMEWORK Composition Execution Engine (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/170) UNPUBLISHED Exposes and executes the composed services which result from using the Composition Editor Generic Enabler or are defined in a execution language supported by the tool APPLICATIONS/SERVICES ECOSYSTEMS AND DELIVERY FRAMEWORK Please find attached a doc with most of the content I've created for each entry. If you want to change or add anything, please let me know. For the time being, they are "under revision" and I'm not sure if you can edit my entries (to change the description of the GEs, to include new instances, etc.) or even see them. If necessary, I can share with you my credentials (user/password) I'm not sure about what is expected to be included in the "downloads" and the "documentation" sections: downloads/documentation regarding the GE? downloads/documentation regarding each instance? For example, in Ericsson Composition Engine (http://fi-ware.cloud.labs.ericsson.net/node/104) Ericsson has included the "Ericsson Composition Engine, Advanced Composition Editor User's Guide", which refers to an instance of the Composition Execution Engine GE. Am I wrong? Best regards, Javier -- ************************************************ Dr. Javier Soriano Dept. Lenguajes y Sistemas Inform?ticos e Ingenier?a de Software Facultad de Inform?tica Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo 28660 - Boadilla del Monte, Madrid Spain ************************************************ --------------------- AVISO LEGAL: Este correo electr?nico y cualquier documento adjunto contienen informaci?n confidencial destinada para ser le?da exclusivamente por el destinatario. Su contenido no constituye un compromiso para la Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid salvo ratificaci?n escrita por ambas partes. Queda prohibida la reproducci?n, publicaci?n, divulgaci?n, total o parcial del mensaje as? como el uso o reenv?o no autorizado por el emisor. En caso de recibir el mensaje por error, se ruega su comunicaci?n al remitente lo antes posible y su posterior eliminaci?n. Gracias. DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information for the exclusive use of the recipient.Its contents do not constitute a commitment by Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid except where provided for in a signed agreement between both parties. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, forwarding or dissemination, either whole or partial, is expressly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete it afterwards. Thank you. Dr. Uwe Riss Senior Researcher, Internet Applications & Services | SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-70212 | F +49 6227 78-26158 | M +49 151 16810936 | mailto: uwe.riss at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschaeftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdruecklich 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. -- ************************************************ Dr. Javier Soriano Dept. Lenguajes y Sistemas Inform?ticos e Ingenier?a de Software Facultad de Inform?tica Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo 28660 - Boadilla del Monte, Madrid Spain ************************************************ --------------------- AVISO LEGAL: Este correo electr?nico y cualquier documento adjunto contienen informaci?n confidencial destinada para ser le?da exclusivamente por el destinatario. Su contenido no constituye un compromiso para la Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid salvo ratificaci?n escrita por ambas partes. Queda prohibida la reproducci?n, publicaci?n, divulgaci?n, total o parcial del mensaje as? como el uso o reenv?o no autorizado por el emisor. En caso de recibir el mensaje por error, se ruega su comunicaci?n al remitente lo antes posible y su posterior eliminaci?n. Gracias. DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information for the exclusive use of the recipient.Its contents do not constitute a commitment by Universidad Polit?cnica de Madrid except where provided for in a signed agreement between both parties. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, forwarding or dissemination, either whole or partial, is expressly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please notify the sender as soon as possible and delete it afterwards. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Fiware-apps mailing list Fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-apps -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roozbeh.farahbod at sap.com Wed Jul 25 11:08:22 2012 From: roozbeh.farahbod at sap.com (Farahbod, Roozbeh) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:08:22 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Questionnaire for Instant Mobility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Questionnaire for Instant Mobility is updated. Can anyone delete the first version? Cheers, Roozbeh From: , Roozbeh Farahbod > Date: Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2012 09:42 To: "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu" > Subject: Questionnaire for Instant Mobility Hi all, I have uploaded the answers to the questionnaire from Instant Mobility to the forge. I have asked for more explanation on question 7. Cheers, Roozbeh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesus.gorronogoitia at atosresearch.eu Wed Jul 25 16:51:23 2012 From: jesus.gorronogoitia at atosresearch.eu (Yosu =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gorro=F1ogoitia?=) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:51:23 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] EXTREMELY URGENT *** TO DO BY 25th JULY 2012 In-Reply-To: <50092EF5.6000000@eng.it> References: <50092EF5.6000000@eng.it> Message-ID: <1343227883.15602.3.camel@avalon.atos.net> Ciao Davide, done wrt CDE Management and FI App Creation for both first and second releases. Regards Yosu On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 12:12 +0200, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: > Dear Partners, > this message is to ask you to contribute on the Roadmap. > > As requested by the project coordinator, we have to report > into the roadmap the features, the rationale, and the references > to the user stories per feature. For the existing tools Trace > Analyser, Prosa > and SoPeCo what is the baseline in terms of functionalities and make > clear what are those developed within Fi-WARE. > > Here is the collaborative document to use > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBN7Jwnf54NexZeMLNtbtyl3YHj57M8VGRpvelAPksA/edit > > Please follow the structure of the already inserted items: > 1 - complete the list of features, that are available from the already > existing tool > (base line), or developed in the context of FI-WARE. > 2 - For each feature developed in FI-WARE report the links to the > related > tickets from the Backlog Management tracker. > 3 - If you discover that some ticket (user story) is missing, create > it. > > thank you very much for this contribution. > We must have everything done by next Wednesday 25th ... we can't miss > this date! > > thank you and > Best Regards > Davide > > PS: all next week I'll have a very limited access to the emails, so > please, for urgent messages, > put also Matteo in copy. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jul 26 00:38:31 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:38:31 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Questionnaire for Instant Mobility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50107567.9060508@eng.it> Good! thank you Roozbeh. ciao, Davide On 25/07/2012 09:42, Farahbod, Roozbeh wrote: > Hi all, > > I have uploaded the answers to the questionnaire from Instant Mobility > to the forge. I have asked for more explanation on question 7. > > Cheers, > Roozbeh > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 26 00:38:35 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:38:35 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] EXTREMELY URGENT *** TO DO BY 25th JULY 2012 In-Reply-To: <1343227883.15602.3.camel@avalon.atos.net> References: <50092EF5.6000000@eng.it> <1343227883.15602.3.camel@avalon.atos.net> Message-ID: <5010756B.2040607@eng.it> Good! thank you Yosu ciao, Davide On 25/07/2012 16:51, Yosu Gorro?ogoitia wrote: > Ciao Davide, > done wrt CDE Management and FI App Creation for both first and second > releases. > Regards > Yosu > > On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 12:12 +0200, Davide Dalle Carbonare wrote: >> Dear Partners, >> this message is to ask you to contribute on the Roadmap. >> >> As requested by the project coordinator, we have to report >> into the roadmap the features, the rationale, and the references >> to the user stories per feature. For the existing tools Trace >> Analyser, Prosa >> and SoPeCo what is the baseline in terms of functionalities and make >> clear what are those developed within Fi-WARE. >> >> Here is the collaborative document to use >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBN7Jwnf54NexZeMLNtbtyl3YHj57M8VGRpvelAPksA/edit >> >> Please follow the structure of the already inserted items: >> 1 - complete the list of features, that are available from the already >> existing tool >> (base line), or developed in the context of FI-WARE. >> 2 - For each feature developed in FI-WARE report the links to the >> related >> tickets from the Backlog Management tracker. >> 3 - If you discover that some ticket (user story) is missing, create >> it. >> >> thank you very much for this contribution. >> We must have everything done by next Wednesday 25th ... we can't miss >> this date! >> >> thank you and >> Best Regards >> Davide >> >> PS: all next week I'll have a very limited access to the emails, so >> please, for urgent messages, >> put also Matteo in copy. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Jul 26 00:38:40 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:38:40 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] OUTSMART (Birmingham) questionnaire uploaded Message-ID: <50107570.9080903@eng.it> Hi All, I've uploaded on the forge the questionnaire from the Birmingham use case of OUTSMART project. cheers, Davide From davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it Mon Jul 30 14:25:59 2012 From: davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it (Davide Dalle Carbonare) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:25:59 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report In-Reply-To: <50164D19.1080207@tid.es> References: <50164D19.1080207@tid.es> Message-ID: <50167D57.4080407@eng.it> Dear all, as from the subject ... see below. BR Davide -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:00:09 +0200 From: Juanjo Hierro To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi, Just wanted to add the fiware-pcc, in order to make the dissemination more complete. Don't hesitate to use this as a tool to demonstrate members of your team the need that they take things seriously and deliver. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 30/07/12 10:58, Juanjo Hierro wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We have just received the following extract of the executive summary > draft review report. > > We haven't had time to review it. But certainly the review report > is not as positive as we thought after the first year review meeting. > > Overall, it is worth to highlight that the project's assestment is: > > * Unsatisfactory progress (The project has failed to achieve key > objectives and/or is not at all on schedule)" > > > This, among other things, confirms us that the recent measurements > put in place were required. > > Now, it's critical to demonstrate that we are going to deliver what > was due and that the testbed will not get delayed. > > We'll come with additional comments later. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:42:05 +0000 > From: > To: , > CC: , , > > > > Dear all, > > Below is an extract from the draft executive summary of the draft M12 > review report. > > The extract may deviate from the executive summary in the final > version of the review report. > > It is sent since it contains some information, e.g. about deliverable > acceptance, that you may want to know asap. > > Best regards, > > Arian. > > ====================== > > The objectives of the project during this period remain unchanged, but > are brought into sharp focus due to the delay of two months plus now > apparent, and the critical need to release the complete and > comprehensive Generic Enabler (GE) Open Specifications and > accompanying reference code as soon as possible in order to not risk > destabilizing the entire FI PPP. > > Many primary technical deliverables expected at M12 are not yet > available, which is extremely poor progress given that they are some > of the main achievements planned for Month 12 and create the first > useable foundation for Use Cases projects to build upon. Compounding > this failure is the poor quality and incompleteness of various > technical deliverables; a quite astounding result given the resources > available to the project. > > According to the Description of Work (DoW), the main achievements for > this period should be the first version of the GE open specifications, > software prototypes and related guidance material and test plan. Only > the specifications were delivered so far. However, they are inadequate > for communication and unified understanding with the Use Case > projects, are not of the required quality to serve the needs of those > projects, and do not provide sufficient basis for practical > implementation by software developers - all of which are fundamental > to the rationale for and objectives of FI-WARE. It is unclear in many > of the GE specifications which are the reusable and commonly shared > functions, and which usage areas across various sectors would utilize > these GEs. There are also no details on the protocols that support > interoperability with other GEs or third party products or how this > interoperability would be achieved. Moreover, a consolidated and > consistent presentation of the specifications is still missing. > > There is a lot of confusion about what the GEs really are, or meant to > be, within the FI-WARE consortium, and most probably the UC projects, > not to mention the world at large. They are a mixed bag, including > functional descriptions, specifications of (not necessarily > well-defined) technical functions, specification of access and other > operational protocols, specification of access to other existing > "modules"/"components"/"devices" and so on, specifications to enable > interfaces between existing protocols, specifications to enable > deployment of other collection of protocols as "engines", etc. > > As mentioned in the DoW, "GE Open Specifications will contain all the > information required in order to build compliant products which can > work as alternative implementations of GEs developed in FI-WARE and > therefore may replace a GE implementation developed in FI-WARE within > a particular FI-WARE Instance." However, given the current state of > the GE deliverables, there are severe doubts about how a FI-WARE > instance ("platform") could be built from the GEs without a massive > amount of "imagination" and tweaking to make them work together. There > are also severe doubts about how a "Future Internet Application" could > be portable across different FI-WARE Instances that implement the > (same set of?) GEs that the Future Internet Application relies on. > > The GEs as currently defined are not, by themselves, implementable in > the sense of delivering a practical software solution ("platform"). > This is compounded by the difficulty of understanding what is really > meant by a "coherent" set of GEs. Some GEs seem to have closer > inter-relationships than others. > > Notwithstanding the (useful) clarifications and information orally > provided at the review meeting, the inadequate and indeed scarce > information within these specifications and the discrepancies between > the Technical Roadmap and the available GE contents lead the reviewers > to cast doubts on the project achievement so far, and its prospect. > > *FI-WARE failed to meet its milestones for Month 12. * > > Given the above, *technical progress of the project for the first year > is unacceptable*. Moreover, any further delay is likely to > significantly risk integrity of the entire FI-PPP and the smooth > transition to Phase 2. > > The consortium made a generally positive and concerted effort so far > as the review meeting is concerned. It presented itself as a credible > team. The verbal presentations made at the meeting were typically more > informative and explanatory than the written deliverables would lead > readers to expect (some material within the presentation, such as the > matrix of use cases using GEs, is highly appreciated by the > reviewers). With evident technical capability, but lack of timely and > quality delivery, *managerial action is an absolute and urgent must > for an accelerated FI-WARE recovery, and to ensure that the FI-PPP > programme will deliver meaningful innovations*. > > Collaboration with Use Case projects appears to be improving markedly > thanks to key face-to-face training weeks, and enhancements to the way > the Fusion Forge system is managed. However, there are still > significant issues concerning the processing and documentation of the > requirements/backlogs. *A main conclusion from the review is that the > Use Cases requirements are still not considered as high priority by > FI-WARE*. Feedback from Use Case projects, including implications for > the technology perspective and choices made by FI-WARE, should be > (more visibly) taken into account and demonstrated as such. > Traceability is crucial for the credibility of the FI-WARE technical > deliverables and uptake beyond the consortium; and accountability is > required to justify financing from the public purse. > > The recently conducted architecture training weeks should be used as a > stepping stone towards building an FI-PPP "culture" between all > Programme participants. More such sessions should be planned, > particularly around the test-bed integration deployment and use of the > DevComE toolset. For its own part, DevComE is presently a positive > highlight of the project. Integration planning for the test-bed is > sound and detailed. > > The testing and the integration activities are among the project > highlights. Both are carefully planned and well specified. As the > development of the GEs is delayed, the integration activities still > lack concreteness in terms of specific scenarios in which several of > the GEs will be involved, which is a pity. > > Work undertaken regarding communication and dissemination is showing > significant advancement, albeit with still substantial opportunity for > improvement. > > Given the overall delay in the work plan, the postponement of many key > deliverables, and the insufficient quality (and quantity) of the > technical specifications, the reviewers consider that the resources > were not utilized effectively within the first project year. > > The consortium has put reasonable effort into analysing and > positioning FI-WARE in the current market context. The exploitation > within the scope of "Smart Cities" is promising and welcome, but the > Use Cases projects should be targeted as prime users. The business > strategy is however absent, in so far that no credible and preliminary > quantified business case has been presented yet. The consortium's > position that the business case will arrive in the second year of the > project is a matter of serious concerns; for example, the reviewers > have the strong impression that nobody in the consortium has any > notion of the overall amount of investment required to take FI-WARE > results to the market, and the work presented is clearly (still) > lacking substantive input from the business departments of the > industrial partners. Despite the extensive comments in the Month 6 > Review Report and notwithstanding the voluminous deliverable D11.2.1, > there is still no unified or compelling marketing message, including > no compelling unique selling proposition, of the FI-WARE results. The > individual exploitation plans of the partners are timid. There is > inadequate consideration of third party development and SME > exploitation at the business level. The globalisation dimension of the > exploitation plan is unconvincing. The consortium is reminded that the > success of FI-WARE depends on the delivery of a genuine global > solution, exploitable by partners inside and outside the consortium > and beyond Europe. In summary, *there is a glaring and alarming > discrepancy between the high ambitions of FI-WARE given in the DoW and > the very limited perspective of exploitation offered so far.* > > The reviewers are disappointed that many of the recommendations made > -- dating back to the Month 6 review or even earlier - have not been > sufficiently considered. Additionally, the reviewers are frustrated by > the pattern of (extremely) late submission of the majority of the > deliverables, and hastily communicated rescheduling of other > deliverables with debatable arguments. Such behaviour is not > acceptable in the business world; it is equally unacceptable in the > context of European collaborative activity, especially in view of the > public funding involved. > > b. Recommendations concerning the period under review > > The following deliverables require re-submission: > > . D2.3.1 by Month 15 (from Month 9 review) > > . D2.4.1 by Month 15 (from Month 9 review) > > . D2.1.2 by Month 18 > > . D3.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D4.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D5.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D6.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D7.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D8.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D11.1.1 by Month 18 > > . D11.2.1 by Month 18 > > . D11.3.1 by Month 18 > > The following recommendations are reiterated from the Month 6 review > report (with the timeframe for R[1][2]1 adjusted in light of the Month > 9 review) and were expected to be addressed in a satisfactory manner > by the Month 12 review (original recommendations re-produced in italics): > > /R [1-3]1. Given FI-WARE's intent to remain domain > neutral, a comprehensive technology map must be created that clearly > and unambiguously illustrates the relationships between all Generic > Enablers to be produced by FI-WARE. This was expected to be documented > in deliverable D2.3.1 originally due Month 9, for which re-submission > is now due Month 15. / > > Still to be addressed in the forthcoming resubmission of D2.3.1 due > Month 15. > > /As regards the "transparent encompassing architecture" for FI-WARE as > a whole also asked for already in the first recommendation of the > review report at M3, we advise the consortium to keep in mind and log > this recommendation, and re-visit it in 2013, after the projects > selected under Phase 2 have joined the FI PPP./ > > /R [1-3]3. Ensure meaningful interaction with standards > bodies including Internet-related standards groups such as the IETF, > the W3C, the IEEE, the ITU-T, the OMA, and the 3GPP/2. This is > expected to be reported in deliverable D12.3.2 due Month 12 and/or > deliverable D11.4.1 due Month 9./ > > Still to be addressed in the forthcoming D11.4.2 due Month 15. > > /R [1-3]6. Ensure there is a focus on attracting a > development community for FI-WARE, and not only within the FI-PPP, but > where possible within the partner organisations and the open community > of potential users. This is expected to be considered in relation to > deliverable D2.5.1 and reported in deliverable D12.2.2./ > > Still to be addressed in the forthcoming D2.5.1. > > /R [1-3]7. As there is substantial reliance on external > technology sources, e.g., other FP7 projects and open source projects, > contingencies should be prepared which address what actions to take > should those projects fail to deliver, or are delayed with planned > delivery upon which FI-WARE depends. This is expected to be documented > in deliverable D1.1.2 due Month 12./ > > The sourcing of technology is still not sufficiently clear. > Contingency planning is still not adequately provided for or > documented in D1.1.2. Please provide an adequate plan in the online > version of the Project Management Handbook asap. > > /R [1-3]8. There is a reasonable likelihood that FI-WARE > chapters will be unable to achieve all that they would like to. A risk > mitigation strategy should be put in place for this, with thought > given in advance on how the project plans to prioritise resources if > insufficient resources are available to cope with all planned work. > This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2. The > consortium is reminded that effort and funding allocations in the DoW > are indicative and not sacrosanct./ > > A robust risk management strategy is still missing from D1.1.2. Please > provide such a strategy in the online version of the Project > Management Handbook asap. > > /R [1-3]9. Make sustained effort to enrol the support of > stakeholders from the business and marketing departments of all major > commercial partners in the project. External to the consortium, > dissemination should go considerably beyond the "traditional groups" > that are usually targeted for dissemination in FP7 projects. This > concerns both the RTD communities and the business communities at > large, within as well as outside Europe. Consumer organisations should > also be considered and inputs be sought, to make sure that the FI-PPP > results will be successfully adopted by the mass market. This is > expected to be reported in deliverable D12.2.2./ > > Progress has been made in relation to dissemination. The active > involvement and support of the business and marketing personnel from > the industrial project partners is still largely absent. > > /R [1-3]10. Ensure that planning of the Open Calls starts > early and the Open Calls are inclusive enough to attract any > prospective submitters including specialist SMEs (without making a > priori assumptions about who might be interested in the calls). The > Open Calls should be used as a strategic opportunity for disseminating > FI-WARE to FI stakeholders and engaging their interest in FI-WARE > outputs. The Open Call processes and experience, including lessons > learnt, should be documented and assimilated by the consortium for > subsequent calls, and included in the relevant editions of deliverable > D1.2.x for reporting and auditing purposes. Please take into full > account our remarks on the management and administration of the Open > Calls in Section 1a of the previous (M6) Review Report, and clarify > the rationale for the selection of the topic(s) for the forthcoming > first Open Call and to what extent the use case projects have a voice > in the topic selection in the first and subsequent calls./ > > The reviewers are still awaiting the reporting of the first Open Call. > Progress to be re-assessed in relation to the planning/reporting of > the next Open Call in the forthcoming D1.3.2. > > /R [1-3]11. The reviewers cannot over-emphasise the > importance of exploitation planning, including detailed documentation > of IPR management. In our view, this is also intimately linked to > enablement of third party exploitation. Please refer to our remarks in > Sections 1a and 1b of the previous (M6) Review Report. It is obvious > that high expectations are placed by the reviewers on deliverables > D11.2.1 and D2.5.1 due Month 12. Please do not treat this as a paper > exercise for satisfying the reviewers. Instead, they should be treated > as initial blueprints for realistic business models backed by genuine > commitment from especially the industrial partners./ > > Unsatisfactory addressed. Exploitation planning lacks credibility and > market traction. To be addressed in the resubmission of D11.2.1 due M18. > > /R [1-3]12. All future deliverables should continue to be > made available to the reviewers in pdf format. They should also be > submitted on time. The consortium should investigate whether posting > such files on its website or wiki might provide value for potential > users, in addition to the wiki pages (at least those files relating to > key deliverables). Please report the findings of the investigation at > the next review./ > > Unsatisfactory addressed. Large numbers of deliverables not submitted > on time, yet again. Others have been rescheduled in a hasty manner. > The reviewers strongly recommend corrective actions. > > Additionally, the reviewers request that project deliverables be made > available as a consolidated file for future reviews. > > The consortium has no inclination to make deliverables available in a > file format, other than to the EC and reviewers for pure compliance > purposes, after evident resistance. The need to investigate the > usefulness of such files to would-be users was dismissed. > > /R [1-3]13. Improve the usefulness and attractiveness of > the project website: make the information (even) more easy to find, > bearing in mind that users might not be familiar with the FI-PPP; > enhance the website as a marketing tool to would-be third parties and > 'customers' of FI-WARE results (make the website answer the question > to companies not involved in EU funded activities: why should I be > interested in what FI-WARE is doing, and what is in it for me?). > Consider the use of creditable Search Engine Optimization techniques./ > > Unsatisfactorily addressed -- no evidence of website improvement as a > marketing tool. Significant improvement required for Month 17. > > The consortium is also encouraged to bring forward the implementation > of the FI-WARE GE portal (not in DoW, but highly welcome) currently > planned for Year 3. > > /R [1-3]14. Put in place contingencies for loss of key > people from the project. This is expected to be documented in > deliverable D1.1.2./ > > Recommendation addressed to some degree, for example by involving WP > leaders in the management of backlog. Please provide a clear update in > the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. > > Recommendations still outstanding from the initial review of D2.2.1: > > /. R2: the relationship between GEs and the Specific > Enablers needs to be clarified and documented, bearing in mind that > the former are potential candidates for standardisation in due course, > and the latter are critical from the view point of making business out > of FI-WARE results. Documentation is now expected at Month 9 with > deliverable D2.3.1./ > > Still to be addressed in the resubmitted version of the D2.3.1 due > Month 15. > > /. R9: The requested delivery schedule for the GEs, or at > a minimum indication of prioritisation, has not been presented. This > is now expected for deliverable D2.4.1 at Month 9. The information > should be made visibly available in the public domain./ > > Still not addressed, with mismatches between the Backlog, the > Technical Roadmap and the Open Specifications delivered; To be > addressed in the resubmitted version of the D2.4.1 due Month 15. > > c. Recommendations concerning future work > > R[3]15. Ensure that the quality of the GE specifications is high and > consistent. Use GE specification for WP8 as a template for all other WPs. > > R[3]16. Clean up the backlog, and keep it up to date at all times. > Specific resources must be dedicated to this. > > R[3]17. Focus on delivery of critical-path, high-priority (for the > Use Cases) GEs. > > R[3]18. GE code releases must be synchronized with GE priorities > indicated by Use Case projects. > > R[3]19. Ensure that architectural documentation clearly and > unambiguously indicates the trace of source requirements and > justification. > > R[3]20. Transparency and visibility in what was delivered and what is > going to be delivered by the consortium in all future FI-WARE Releases. > > R[3]21. Meeting the "check points" set by the reviewers. > > For the next period leading up to the M18 review, the reviewers will > be monitoring and assessing project progress against the following key > "check points", in addition to DoW compliance and assessment of the > project deliverables due: > > 1. Technical Paper including common usage scenarios for the GEs for > wide dissemination (incl. to Use Case projects and third parties), > month 15 > > 2. Public availability matrix of use cases using the GEs; continuous > update of the matrix, month 15 & thereafter > > 3. FI-WARE software release, month 15 > > 4. Public availability of the SAP GEs in WP3, month 15 (done) > > 5. Testbed in operation, feedback from UC projects on using the > testbed, month 17 > > 6. Enhancement/re-design of the current website for impact creation, > month 17 > > 7. Hold additional architectural weeks, develop training plan for use > of the DevComE framework, consider inviting 3rd party developers, month 18 > > 8. Develop and publish a plan for fostering developer communities, > month 18 > > 9. Live demonstration of the FI-WARE test-bed with deployed GE > software, Next review meeting > > 10. Presentation by senior business personnel from the main commercial > partners of the consortium (at a minimum: TID, SAP, TI, Orange/FT) on > corporate plans to bring the FI-WARE key results to the market, Next > review meeting > > R[3]22. For the next period overall project resource allocation > should be reviewed to identify the specific weaknesses leading to the > failings identified in this review project; resources should be > re-planned and re-allocated to rectify the failings where necessary. > > d. Assessment > > Unsatisfactory progress (The project has failed to achieve key > objectives and/or is not at all on schedule) > > ============================== > > Some other considerations: > > After one year in the project, one may want to evaluate what has been > achieved, esp taking into account that 12 MEuro has been spent. A > specific feature of the first reporting period, and a direct result of > the delays, is that efforts have been spent on tasks that did not > result in submitted deliverables. The economy, effectiveness and > efficiency of these efforts can therefore not be evaluated. > > More importantly, after one year in the project, one may want to > evaluate what can be realistically achieved at the end of the project: > > -The status and maturity of single GEs differ a lot. More consistency > and maturity in the specification of GEs needs to be achieved. The > litmus test is that these specifications need to be sufficiently > mature and complete so that independent software developers can use > them to develop implementations that are interchangeable. Prospect: good. > > -It is not clear to what extent the GE Open Specifications satisfy the > requirements from use cases, FI-WARE organisations, or otherwise. > There is a risk that at the end of the project the GE Open > Specifications do not satisfy the requirements of the use cases. > > -The baseline assets of each individual GE are not clear. Partly > because of this, the roadmap is not clear. At the end of the project, > there will be reference implementations, no doubt, but it is not clear > to what extent the GE Open Specifications follow the existing baseline > assets or v.v. There is a risk that the reference implementations do > not satisfy the requirements of the use cases. > > -The IPR protection of the reference implementations is unclear. At > the end of the project, the use cases need clarity on this. It is > essential that this information becomes available as soon as possible. > > -Likewise, the exploitation plans of the owners of the reference > implementations are unclear. At the end of the project, the use cases > need clarity on this. It is essential that this information becomes > available as soon as possible. > > -The division of budgets in FI-WARE is (largely) based on the > existence of baseline assets. The more baseline assets a partner > brought into the project, the larger its budget in FI-WARE. The > advantage is that the work does not start from scratch. It is likely > that these baseline assets are typically proprietary solutions. It can > be expected that partners will give priority to their baseline assets, > further developing these assets, and give less priority to fulfilling > use case requirements. Although access to these assets by use case > projects after the end of the FI-WARE project is addressed by clause > 41, the exact conditions for access, the availability of the assets, > and their maturity are unknown. This leaves use cases, possible > FI-WARE Instance providers, and third party application developers in > an uncertain situation, and clarity is necessary. > > -There is a high risk that current developments on GE reference > implementations do not fulfil the requirements of the use cases. This > could be accepted to some extent if these reference implementations > would be based on clear requirements from the business departments of > the technology providers, and if there were clear exploitation plans > for these reference implementations. In such situation, usefulness to > use cases would be offset by wide availability and accessibility. > However, at the moment there is a high risk that at the end of the > FI-WARE project the reference implementations will not fulfil the > requirements from the use cases AND will not be accessible. > > The month 18 review and the Call 2 evaluation will provide an > opportunity to analyse the situation with respect to a) the FI-WARE > GEs and their reference implementations, b) the priorities of the > phase 2 use cases, and c) the commitments of the FI-WARE beneficiaries. > > Regarding the FI-WARE GEs and their reference implementations, > information is needed a.o. concerning: > > -The final list of GEs for which Open Specifications will be written > > -The extent to which these GEs fulfil requirements (from all sources), > providing justification and accountability > > -For each GE: the reference implementation(s) of the GE > > -For each GE reference implementation: the baseline asset(s) upon > which the reference implementation will be based, the current status, > the owner, the relation to other GE (reference implementations) > > Regarding the phase 2 use cases: > > -The list of GEs the phase 2 use cases plan to use, and their priority > > -The list of GE reference implementations the phase 2 use cases plan > to use, and their priority > > Regarding the commitment of the FI-WARE beneficiaries: > > -For each GE reference implementation: the conditions under which it > will be available for FI-PPP programme participants and third parties > beyond the lifetime of FI-WARE > > With respect to the last point, stated intentions in confidential > exploitation plans are not sufficient. True commitment and therefore > true assurance of the use cases and third parties of the > sustainability of their efforts building on FI-WARE can be shown via > e.g. a public statement by the GE reference implementation IPR > holders. Such a public statement could follow lines as sketched below: > > -"Our developments in FI-WARE/FI-PPP will be made available as > open-source, and/or > > -Our developments in FI-WARE will be proprietary, conforming to the GE > Open Specifications, and we guarantee that they will be available on > the market as of [date] under FRAND conditions and will be available > for at least [y] years. The exact conditions will be specified within > [x] months. In case our companies determine the product will no longer > be commercially offered, the source code will be made available as > open source and donated to [xyz], and/or > > -Company X is developing an implementation of a certain GE. Within > FI-WARE, an open source reference implementation of the same GE is > being developed. Company X builds a proprietary implementation, > outside the FI-WARE project, using own funds, and/or > > -Our companies encourage the development of multiple implementations > of a certain GE, will develop a reference implementation for each of > the specified GEs within the context of the FI-WARE project, using > public money, and will develop additional proprietary implementations > [for GEs g,h,k] using own funds > > -We commit to safeguard the evolution and nature of the GEs for at > least [x] years after the FI-PPP programme. > > -Etc" > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl From matteo.melideo at eng.it Tue Jul 31 11:08:36 2012 From: matteo.melideo at eng.it (Matteo Melideo) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:08:36 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-tools] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report In-Reply-To: <50164CB7.1060804@tid.es> References: <50164CB7.1060804@tid.es> Message-ID: <5017A094.4080000@eng.it> Dear All, I guess this could be interest for you. Best regards Matteo -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report Data: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:58:31 +0200 Mittente: Juanjo Hierro A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear colleagues, We have just received the following extract of the executive summary draft review report. We haven't had time to review it. But certainly the review report is not as positive as we thought after the first year review meeting. Overall, it is worth to highlight that the project's assestment is: * Unsatisfactory progress (The project has failed to achieve key objectives and/or is not at all on schedule)" This, among other things, confirms us that the recent measurements put in place were required. Now, it's critical to demonstrate that we are going to deliver what was due and that the testbed will not get delayed. We'll come with additional comments later. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:42:05 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear all, Below is an extract from the draft executive summary of the draft M12 review report. The extract may deviate from the executive summary in the final version of the review report. It is sent since it contains some information, e.g. about deliverable acceptance, that you may want to know asap. Best regards, Arian. ====================== The objectives of the project during this period remain unchanged, but are brought into sharp focus due to the delay of two months plus now apparent, and the critical need to release the complete and comprehensive Generic Enabler (GE) Open Specifications and accompanying reference code as soon as possible in order to not risk destabilizing the entire FI PPP. Many primary technical deliverables expected at M12 are not yet available, which is extremely poor progress given that they are some of the main achievements planned for Month 12 and create the first useable foundation for Use Cases projects to build upon. Compounding this failure is the poor quality and incompleteness of various technical deliverables; a quite astounding result given the resources available to the project. According to the Description of Work (DoW), the main achievements for this period should be the first version of the GE open specifications, software prototypes and related guidance material and test plan. Only the specifications were delivered so far. However, they are inadequate for communication and unified understanding with the Use Case projects, are not of the required quality to serve the needs of those projects, and do not provide sufficient basis for practical implementation by software developers - all of which are fundamental to the rationale for and objectives of FI-WARE. It is unclear in many of the GE specifications which are the reusable and commonly shared functions, and which usage areas across various sectors would utilize these GEs. There are also no details on the protocols that support interoperability with other GEs or third party products or how this interoperability would be achieved. Moreover, a consolidated and consistent presentation of the specifications is still missing. There is a lot of confusion about what the GEs really are, or meant to be, within the FI-WARE consortium, and most probably the UC projects, not to mention the world at large. They are a mixed bag, including functional descriptions, specifications of (not necessarily well-defined) technical functions, specification of access and other operational protocols, specification of access to other existing "modules"/"components"/"devices" and so on, specifications to enable interfaces between existing protocols, specifications to enable deployment of other collection of protocols as "engines", etc. As mentioned in the DoW, "GE Open Specifications will contain all the information required in order to build compliant products which can work as alternative implementations of GEs developed in FI-WARE and therefore may replace a GE implementation developed in FI-WARE within a particular FI-WARE Instance." However, given the current state of the GE deliverables, there are severe doubts about how a FI-WARE instance ("platform") could be built from the GEs without a massive amount of "imagination" and tweaking to make them work together. There are also severe doubts about how a "Future Internet Application" could be portable across different FI-WARE Instances that implement the (same set of?) GEs that the Future Internet Application relies on. The GEs as currently defined are not, by themselves, implementable in the sense of delivering a practical software solution ("platform"). This is compounded by the difficulty of understanding what is really meant by a "coherent" set of GEs. Some GEs seem to have closer inter-relationships than others. Notwithstanding the (useful) clarifications and information orally provided at the review meeting, the inadequate and indeed scarce information within these specifications and the discrepancies between the Technical Roadmap and the available GE contents lead the reviewers to cast doubts on the project achievement so far, and its prospect. *FI-WARE failed to meet its milestones for Month 12. * Given the above, *technical progress of the project for the first year is unacceptable*. Moreover, any further delay is likely to significantly risk integrity of the entire FI-PPP and the smooth transition to Phase 2. The consortium made a generally positive and concerted effort so far as the review meeting is concerned. It presented itself as a credible team. The verbal presentations made at the meeting were typically more informative and explanatory than the written deliverables would lead readers to expect (some material within the presentation, such as the matrix of use cases using GEs, is highly appreciated by the reviewers). With evident technical capability, but lack of timely and quality delivery, *managerial action is an absolute and urgent must for an accelerated FI-WARE recovery, and to ensure that the FI-PPP programme will deliver meaningful innovations*. Collaboration with Use Case projects appears to be improving markedly thanks to key face-to-face training weeks, and enhancements to the way the Fusion Forge system is managed. However, there are still significant issues concerning the processing and documentation of the requirements/backlogs. *A main conclusion from the review is that the Use Cases requirements are still not considered as high priority by FI-WARE*. Feedback from Use Case projects, including implications for the technology perspective and choices made by FI-WARE, should be (more visibly) taken into account and demonstrated as such. Traceability is crucial for the credibility of the FI-WARE technical deliverables and uptake beyond the consortium; and accountability is required to justify financing from the public purse. The recently conducted architecture training weeks should be used as a stepping stone towards building an FI-PPP "culture" between all Programme participants. More such sessions should be planned, particularly around the test-bed integration deployment and use of the DevComE toolset. For its own part, DevComE is presently a positive highlight of the project. Integration planning for the test-bed is sound and detailed. The testing and the integration activities are among the project highlights. Both are carefully planned and well specified. As the development of the GEs is delayed, the integration activities still lack concreteness in terms of specific scenarios in which several of the GEs will be involved, which is a pity. Work undertaken regarding communication and dissemination is showing significant advancement, albeit with still substantial opportunity for improvement. Given the overall delay in the work plan, the postponement of many key deliverables, and the insufficient quality (and quantity) of the technical specifications, the reviewers consider that the resources were not utilized effectively within the first project year. The consortium has put reasonable effort into analysing and positioning FI-WARE in the current market context. The exploitation within the scope of "Smart Cities" is promising and welcome, but the Use Cases projects should be targeted as prime users. The business strategy is however absent, in so far that no credible and preliminary quantified business case has been presented yet. The consortium's position that the business case will arrive in the second year of the project is a matter of serious concerns; for example, the reviewers have the strong impression that nobody in the consortium has any notion of the overall amount of investment required to take FI-WARE results to the market, and the work presented is clearly (still) lacking substantive input from the business departments of the industrial partners. Despite the extensive comments in the Month 6 Review Report and notwithstanding the voluminous deliverable D11.2.1, there is still no unified or compelling marketing message, including no compelling unique selling proposition, of the FI-WARE results. The individual exploitation plans of the partners are timid. There is inadequate consideration of third party development and SME exploitation at the business level. The globalisation dimension of the exploitation plan is unconvincing. The consortium is reminded that the success of FI-WARE depends on the delivery of a genuine global solution, exploitable by partners inside and outside the consortium and beyond Europe. In summary, *there is a glaring and alarming discrepancy between the high ambitions of FI-WARE given in the DoW and the very limited perspective of exploitation offered so far.* The reviewers are disappointed that many of the recommendations made -- dating back to the Month 6 review or even earlier - have not been sufficiently considered. Additionally, the reviewers are frustrated by the pattern of (extremely) late submission of the majority of the deliverables, and hastily communicated rescheduling of other deliverables with debatable arguments. Such behaviour is not acceptable in the business world; it is equally unacceptable in the context of European collaborative activity, especially in view of the public funding involved. b. Recommendations concerning the period under review The following deliverables require re-submission: . D2.3.1 by Month 15 (from Month 9 review) . D2.4.1 by Month 15 (from Month 9 review) . D2.1.2 by Month 18 . D3.1.1 by Month 18 . D4.1.1 by Month 18 . D5.1.1 by Month 18 . D6.1.1 by Month 18 . D7.1.1 by Month 18 . D8.1.1 by Month 18 . D11.1.1 by Month 18 . D11.2.1 by Month 18 . D11.3.1 by Month 18 The following recommendations are reiterated from the Month 6 review report (with the timeframe for R[1][2]1 adjusted in light of the Month 9 review) and were expected to be addressed in a satisfactory manner by the Month 12 review (original recommendations re-produced in italics): /R [1-3]1. Given FI-WARE's intent to remain domain neutral, a comprehensive technology map must be created that clearly and unambiguously illustrates the relationships between all Generic Enablers to be produced by FI-WARE. This was expected to be documented in deliverable D2.3.1 originally due Month 9, for which re-submission is now due Month 15. / Still to be addressed in the forthcoming resubmission of D2.3.1 due Month 15. /As regards the "transparent encompassing architecture" for FI-WARE as a whole also asked for already in the first recommendation of the review report at M3, we advise the consortium to keep in mind and log this recommendation, and re-visit it in 2013, after the projects selected under Phase 2 have joined the FI PPP./ /R [1-3]3. Ensure meaningful interaction with standards bodies including Internet-related standards groups such as the IETF, the W3C, the IEEE, the ITU-T, the OMA, and the 3GPP/2. This is expected to be reported in deliverable D12.3.2 due Month 12 and/or deliverable D11.4.1 due Month 9./ Still to be addressed in the forthcoming D11.4.2 due Month 15. /R [1-3]6. Ensure there is a focus on attracting a development community for FI-WARE, and not only within the FI-PPP, but where possible within the partner organisations and the open community of potential users. This is expected to be considered in relation to deliverable D2.5.1 and reported in deliverable D12.2.2./ Still to be addressed in the forthcoming D2.5.1. /R [1-3]7. As there is substantial reliance on external technology sources, e.g., other FP7 projects and open source projects, contingencies should be prepared which address what actions to take should those projects fail to deliver, or are delayed with planned delivery upon which FI-WARE depends. This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2 due Month 12./ The sourcing of technology is still not sufficiently clear. Contingency planning is still not adequately provided for or documented in D1.1.2. Please provide an adequate plan in the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. /R [1-3]8. There is a reasonable likelihood that FI-WARE chapters will be unable to achieve all that they would like to. A risk mitigation strategy should be put in place for this, with thought given in advance on how the project plans to prioritise resources if insufficient resources are available to cope with all planned work. This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2. The consortium is reminded that effort and funding allocations in the DoW are indicative and not sacrosanct./ A robust risk management strategy is still missing from D1.1.2. Please provide such a strategy in the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. /R [1-3]9. Make sustained effort to enrol the support of stakeholders from the business and marketing departments of all major commercial partners in the project. External to the consortium, dissemination should go considerably beyond the "traditional groups" that are usually targeted for dissemination in FP7 projects. This concerns both the RTD communities and the business communities at large, within as well as outside Europe. Consumer organisations should also be considered and inputs be sought, to make sure that the FI-PPP results will be successfully adopted by the mass market. This is expected to be reported in deliverable D12.2.2./ Progress has been made in relation to dissemination. The active involvement and support of the business and marketing personnel from the industrial project partners is still largely absent. /R [1-3]10. Ensure that planning of the Open Calls starts early and the Open Calls are inclusive enough to attract any prospective submitters including specialist SMEs (without making a priori assumptions about who might be interested in the calls). The Open Calls should be used as a strategic opportunity for disseminating FI-WARE to FI stakeholders and engaging their interest in FI-WARE outputs. The Open Call processes and experience, including lessons learnt, should be documented and assimilated by the consortium for subsequent calls, and included in the relevant editions of deliverable D1.2.x for reporting and auditing purposes. Please take into full account our remarks on the management and administration of the Open Calls in Section 1a of the previous (M6) Review Report, and clarify the rationale for the selection of the topic(s) for the forthcoming first Open Call and to what extent the use case projects have a voice in the topic selection in the first and subsequent calls./ The reviewers are still awaiting the reporting of the first Open Call. Progress to be re-assessed in relation to the planning/reporting of the next Open Call in the forthcoming D1.3.2. /R [1-3]11. The reviewers cannot over-emphasise the importance of exploitation planning, including detailed documentation of IPR management. In our view, this is also intimately linked to enablement of third party exploitation. Please refer to our remarks in Sections 1a and 1b of the previous (M6) Review Report. It is obvious that high expectations are placed by the reviewers on deliverables D11.2.1 and D2.5.1 due Month 12. Please do not treat this as a paper exercise for satisfying the reviewers. Instead, they should be treated as initial blueprints for realistic business models backed by genuine commitment from especially the industrial partners./ Unsatisfactory addressed. Exploitation planning lacks credibility and market traction. To be addressed in the resubmission of D11.2.1 due M18. /R [1-3]12. All future deliverables should continue to be made available to the reviewers in pdf format. They should also be submitted on time. The consortium should investigate whether posting such files on its website or wiki might provide value for potential users, in addition to the wiki pages (at least those files relating to key deliverables). Please report the findings of the investigation at the next review./ Unsatisfactory addressed. Large numbers of deliverables not submitted on time, yet again. Others have been rescheduled in a hasty manner. The reviewers strongly recommend corrective actions. Additionally, the reviewers request that project deliverables be made available as a consolidated file for future reviews. The consortium has no inclination to make deliverables available in a file format, other than to the EC and reviewers for pure compliance purposes, after evident resistance. The need to investigate the usefulness of such files to would-be users was dismissed. /R [1-3]13. Improve the usefulness and attractiveness of the project website: make the information (even) more easy to find, bearing in mind that users might not be familiar with the FI-PPP; enhance the website as a marketing tool to would-be third parties and 'customers' of FI-WARE results (make the website answer the question to companies not involved in EU funded activities: why should I be interested in what FI-WARE is doing, and what is in it for me?). Consider the use of creditable Search Engine Optimization techniques./ Unsatisfactorily addressed -- no evidence of website improvement as a marketing tool. Significant improvement required for Month 17. The consortium is also encouraged to bring forward the implementation of the FI-WARE GE portal (not in DoW, but highly welcome) currently planned for Year 3. /R [1-3]14. Put in place contingencies for loss of key people from the project. This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2./ Recommendation addressed to some degree, for example by involving WP leaders in the management of backlog. Please provide a clear update in the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. Recommendations still outstanding from the initial review of D2.2.1: /. R2: the relationship between GEs and the Specific Enablers needs to be clarified and documented, bearing in mind that the former are potential candidates for standardisation in due course, and the latter are critical from the view point of making business out of FI-WARE results. Documentation is now expected at Month 9 with deliverable D2.3.1./ Still to be addressed in the resubmitted version of the D2.3.1 due Month 15. /. R9: The requested delivery schedule for the GEs, or at a minimum indication of prioritisation, has not been presented. This is now expected for deliverable D2.4.1 at Month 9. The information should be made visibly available in the public domain./ Still not addressed, with mismatches between the Backlog, the Technical Roadmap and the Open Specifications delivered; To be addressed in the resubmitted version of the D2.4.1 due Month 15. c. Recommendations concerning future work R[3]15. Ensure that the quality of the GE specifications is high and consistent. Use GE specification for WP8 as a template for all other WPs. R[3]16. Clean up the backlog, and keep it up to date at all times. Specific resources must be dedicated to this. R[3]17. Focus on delivery of critical-path, high-priority (for the Use Cases) GEs. R[3]18. GE code releases must be synchronized with GE priorities indicated by Use Case projects. R[3]19. Ensure that architectural documentation clearly and unambiguously indicates the trace of source requirements and justification. R[3]20. Transparency and visibility in what was delivered and what is going to be delivered by the consortium in all future FI-WARE Releases. R[3]21. Meeting the "check points" set by the reviewers. For the next period leading up to the M18 review, the reviewers will be monitoring and assessing project progress against the following key "check points", in addition to DoW compliance and assessment of the project deliverables due: 1. Technical Paper including common usage scenarios for the GEs for wide dissemination (incl. to Use Case projects and third parties), month 15 2. Public availability matrix of use cases using the GEs; continuous update of the matrix, month 15 & thereafter 3. FI-WARE software release, month 15 4. Public availability of the SAP GEs in WP3, month 15 (done) 5. Testbed in operation, feedback from UC projects on using the testbed, month 17 6. Enhancement/re-design of the current website for impact creation, month 17 7. Hold additional architectural weeks, develop training plan for use of the DevComE framework, consider inviting 3rd party developers, month 18 8. Develop and publish a plan for fostering developer communities, month 18 9. Live demonstration of the FI-WARE test-bed with deployed GE software, Next review meeting 10. Presentation by senior business personnel from the main commercial partners of the consortium (at a minimum: TID, SAP, TI, Orange/FT) on corporate plans to bring the FI-WARE key results to the market, Next review meeting R[3]22. For the next period overall project resource allocation should be reviewed to identify the specific weaknesses leading to the failings identified in this review project; resources should be re-planned and re-allocated to rectify the failings where necessary. d. Assessment Unsatisfactory progress (The project has failed to achieve key objectives and/or is not at all on schedule) ============================== Some other considerations: After one year in the project, one may want to evaluate what has been achieved, esp taking into account that 12 MEuro has been spent. A specific feature of the first reporting period, and a direct result of the delays, is that efforts have been spent on tasks that did not result in submitted deliverables. The economy, effectiveness and efficiency of these efforts can therefore not be evaluated. More importantly, after one year in the project, one may want to evaluate what can be realistically achieved at the end of the project: -The status and maturity of single GEs differ a lot. More consistency and maturity in the specification of GEs needs to be achieved. The litmus test is that these specifications need to be sufficiently mature and complete so that independent software developers can use them to develop implementations that are interchangeable. Prospect: good. -It is not clear to what extent the GE Open Specifications satisfy the requirements from use cases, FI-WARE organisations, or otherwise. There is a risk that at the end of the project the GE Open Specifications do not satisfy the requirements of the use cases. -The baseline assets of each individual GE are not clear. Partly because of this, the roadmap is not clear. At the end of the project, there will be reference implementations, no doubt, but it is not clear to what extent the GE Open Specifications follow the existing baseline assets or v.v. There is a risk that the reference implementations do not satisfy the requirements of the use cases. -The IPR protection of the reference implementations is unclear. At the end of the project, the use cases need clarity on this. It is essential that this information becomes available as soon as possible. -Likewise, the exploitation plans of the owners of the reference implementations are unclear. At the end of the project, the use cases need clarity on this. It is essential that this information becomes available as soon as possible. -The division of budgets in FI-WARE is (largely) based on the existence of baseline assets. The more baseline assets a partner brought into the project, the larger its budget in FI-WARE. The advantage is that the work does not start from scratch. It is likely that these baseline assets are typically proprietary solutions. It can be expected that partners will give priority to their baseline assets, further developing these assets, and give less priority to fulfilling use case requirements. Although access to these assets by use case projects after the end of the FI-WARE project is addressed by clause 41, the exact conditions for access, the availability of the assets, and their maturity are unknown. This leaves use cases, possible FI-WARE Instance providers, and third party application developers in an uncertain situation, and clarity is necessary. -There is a high risk that current developments on GE reference implementations do not fulfil the requirements of the use cases. This could be accepted to some extent if these reference implementations would be based on clear requirements from the business departments of the technology providers, and if there were clear exploitation plans for these reference implementations. In such situation, usefulness to use cases would be offset by wide availability and accessibility. However, at the moment there is a high risk that at the end of the FI-WARE project the reference implementations will not fulfil the requirements from the use cases AND will not be accessible. The month 18 review and the Call 2 evaluation will provide an opportunity to analyse the situation with respect to a) the FI-WARE GEs and their reference implementations, b) the priorities of the phase 2 use cases, and c) the commitments of the FI-WARE beneficiaries. Regarding the FI-WARE GEs and their reference implementations, information is needed a.o. concerning: -The final list of GEs for which Open Specifications will be written -The extent to which these GEs fulfil requirements (from all sources), providing justification and accountability -For each GE: the reference implementation(s) of the GE -For each GE reference implementation: the baseline asset(s) upon which the reference implementation will be based, the current status, the owner, the relation to other GE (reference implementations) Regarding the phase 2 use cases: -The list of GEs the phase 2 use cases plan to use, and their priority -The list of GE reference implementations the phase 2 use cases plan to use, and their priority Regarding the commitment of the FI-WARE beneficiaries: -For each GE reference implementation: the conditions under which it will be available for FI-PPP programme participants and third parties beyond the lifetime of FI-WARE With respect to the last point, stated intentions in confidential exploitation plans are not sufficient. True commitment and therefore true assurance of the use cases and third parties of the sustainability of their efforts building on FI-WARE can be shown via e.g. a public statement by the GE reference implementation IPR holders. Such a public statement could follow lines as sketched below: -"Our developments in FI-WARE/FI-PPP will be made available as open-source, and/or -Our developments in FI-WARE will be proprietary, conforming to the GE Open Specifications, and we guarantee that they will be available on the market as of [date] under FRAND conditions and will be available for at least [y] years. The exact conditions will be specified within [x] months. In case our companies determine the product will no longer be commercially offered, the source code will be made available as open source and donated to [xyz], and/or -Company X is developing an implementation of a certain GE. Within FI-WARE, an open source reference implementation of the same GE is being developed. Company X builds a proprietary implementation, outside the FI-WARE project, using own funds, and/or -Our companies encourage the development of multiple implementations of a certain GE, will develop a reference implementation for each of the specified GEs within the context of the FI-WARE project, using public money, and will develop additional proprietary implementations [for GEs g,h,k] using own funds -We commit to safeguard the evolution and nature of the GEs for at least [x] years after the FI-PPP programme. -Etc" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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-wpa mailing list Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: