[Fiware-tools] Comments while reviewing the Community and Development Support Tools contribution to the FI-WARE Architecture Chapter

[Matteo Melideo]

Dear Juanjo,
I think I have addressed all your points below directly in the wiki. 
Please check and let me know if they are ok with you.

Regards,

Matteo

Il 08/03/2012 12:43, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
>   There are a number of comments I would like to share with you that 
> have came up while reviewing the Community and Development Support 
> Tools contribution to the FI-WARE Architecture Chapter.   In need to 
> discuss them with you and check we are on the same page, prior to 
> publication:
>
>   * Many times you refer to "assets" instead of "GE implementations",
>     for instance.   However, I haven't seen any definition of the term
>     "asset" to understand why you have introduced such term.  May you
>     clarify what do you refer to by "asset" ?
>   * I would replace ocurrences of "testbed" for "FI-WARE Testbed"
>   * In the paragraph where you start saying:  "The Catalogue
>     environment ... It is configurable, but will for the testbed
>     instance contain the following information:" ...  I do not
>     understand why you mention, as one of the published information
>     "Links to the FI-Ware testbed instance" ...  The catalogue
>     providing a link to the place where it is located (to itself, to
>     some extend) ?  Not sure I catch what it would be used for ...
>   * This comment may be editorial ... or not :-)   You say: "The
>     FI-WARE Catalogue contains open specifications as well as
>     references to the instances where an implementation of those
>     specifications can be found (i.e. the testbed)" ... instances of
>     what ?  FI-WARE instance or GE implementation instances ?   My
>     understanding is "FI-WARE Instances".   On the other hand, I
>     believe it should be "(*e.g.*, the FI-WARE Testbed)" and not
>     "(i.e., the testbed)  ... am I right ?  Therefore the whole
>     sentence should be: "The FI-WARE Catalogue contains open
>     specifications as well as references to the FI-WARE instances
>     where an implementation of those specifications can be found
>     (e.g., the FI-WARE Testbed)
>   * You say: "The publishing of a new GE requires approval by an
>     administrator" ... shouldn't it say "The publishing of a new GE
>     implementation requires approval by an administrator" ?
>   * I believe that somewhere in the "Basic Concepts" section you
>     should elaborate on the difference/distinction between what is the
>     mission of the Catalogue and what is the mission of the Apps
>     Marketplace (to be developed by the Apps Chapter) ....
>   * I would use "FIApp" instead of "FIAp" ... BTW, I would define the
>     term earlier in the document.
>   * References to "WPs" "Work Packages", etc should be dropped.  
>     There is at least one in the figure titled "Testing tool
>     architecture and embedding into the FI-WARE platform".  We wish to
>     have public documentation that do not relate to the structure of
>     activities in our project.
>   * Shouldn't "Add GE to the Catalogue" be "Add GE implementation to
>     the Catalogue" ?
>   * Main interactions with PROSA should be described in more detail
>     (however this is nothing that would prevent publishing the whole
>     chapter contribution.
>
>
>   BTW, I have dropped the reference to the fact we are using the 
> Ericsson Labs platform for developing the reference implementation of 
> the Catalogue.   The FI-WARE Architecture Description document should 
> be as much independent of any concrete particular implementation as 
> possible.   Multiple alternative implementations should be feasible 
> complying with the Architecture Description we are providing.   I hope 
> we are also on the same page here, so you agree with the change.   For 
> the same reasons, I have dropped the reference to the SLA at SOI 
> project.   I would suggest to analyze whether you should refer to 
> PROSA (which sounds like linked to a particular product) or name the 
> component more generally.   Maybe PROSA could stay if it is the 
> acronym of something generic and is not tied to a particular 
> product.   Similar comment applies to SoPeCo.
>
>   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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico 
> en el enlace situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send 
> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-tools/attachments/20120308/d2ba3e74/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matteo_melideo.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 354 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-tools/attachments/20120308/d2ba3e74/attachment.vcf>