Hi all,
Apologies for not sending this email earlier but I haven't had time due to some personal issues I have had to deal with when I arrived from my trip back to Madrid this morning.
These are my notes from the early feedback provided by PO and reviewers after the month 30 review meeting this morning.
Please read it carefully because there are quite relevant recommendations provided by the reviewers.
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
===
As with previous reviews, Arian structured the early feedback in three major parts:
* Positive points
* Not so positive points
* Recommendations
1. Positive points:
Campus Party was a good event. Gave good press and publicity.
Hackthons were good, also in Santander. It shows it is a good way to involve the geeks/developers and raise awareness among them.
Statements about vision and exploitation strategy start to become credible.
Branding story (FI-WARE, FI-Ops, FI-Lab) was positive. Also the product vs project-oriented approach are good developments.
Storyline about FI-Lab supported by the other tools (Catalogue, eLearning, Campusero) is starting to be solid.
Certain momentum behind the project. The risk is to become relaxed.
The list about other EU FP7 projects picking GEis was nice to have. Need to find a process to structure how they are involved (e.g., to gather their feedback in a structured manner).
2. Not so positive points:
Not sufficient evidence about FI-WARE commercial instances. Telefónica's instance has been announced in meetings and the review but there is no public announcement.
FI-Lab is being used by Geeks, that's true but ... are they the ones who will develop commercial applications? Will "serious" SMEs play with FI-Lab as the geeks have done ?
3. Recommendations:
Focus should be on making things ready for phase 3. This includes packaging of FI-WARE GEis (means for automatic deployment, standalone or packaged with other related GEis, good quality documentation). This doesn't prevent to evolve GEis.
Also focus should be on internal and external validation (UC projects, third parties). Run peer-reviews regarding GEis installation, etc among the partners as an internal validation. Process should be put in place to deal with feedback/validation and resources have to be devoted to follow-up the process.
It is important to target the events (go the events) but you have target the community behind the events.
Regarding the GEis in the first group under discussion during the review (see mail from Arian previous to the review to identify which GEis are referred as part of this first group): reviewers recommend that the development of those GEi is stopped with the closing of release 3.2 (planned for end of December). January would be then devoted to close the deliverables linked to release 3.2 (open specifications, GEi software, accompanying documentation, unit testing plan) and deliver them by end of January (month 33) as planned in the original DoW. No further work on the GEis would then be carried out (and therefore, costs accepted).
Question was raised by us about those GEis for which we have announced that an open source version would be available by the end of the project. Arian replied that such statement has arrived too late.
(note 1 after the meeting: regarding this point, I have proposed Arian that work keeps going regarding GEis for which it has been announced that an open source version would be available, at least with respect to packaging and cleaning of the software to make it available as open source. I have also recommended that features in the roadmap are also tackled for some of the IoT GEis (IoT Broker GEi by NEC, Backend Device Management GEi by Telefonica and Protocal Adapter - EPCGE by Orange) because plans to bring them as open source where known or under discussion enough in advance to the review.
(note 2 after the meeting: I have found that, with the exception of GEis referred in note 1, most of the GEis affected are owned by partners who have declared that they didn't object to extend the project, provided that they can finish their contributions to deliverables as originally planned so no significant contributions are expected from them after month 36 other than the support described in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. Therefore, this decision should not mean a major issue I guess).
Regarding tools under WP9: most of the tool are sufficiently mature so it doesn't make sense to continue their development and it is recommended to stop their development. This with the exception of the eLearning platform and the Catalogue platform.
Standards contribution: more concrete plans about contribution should be provided regarding OMF and the active presence in some standardisation bodies.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: GEs to discuss in the review meeting
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:33:44 +0000
From: <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
To: <mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es>
CC: <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>, <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu><mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>
Dear Miguel,
As requested, please find a list below.
The question for the first group is whether it is worthwhile to continue funding development of:
- Data Chapter
- Compressed Domain Video Analysis, Codoan / Siemens
- Metadata Preprocessing, MetadataProcessor / Siemens
- Media-enhanced Query Broker, QueryBroker / Siemens
- Apps Chapter
- (Service Composition, Ericsson Composition Editor (ECE) / Ericsson)
- Service Mashup, Mashup Factory / DT
- Mediator, Mediator_TI / Telecom Italia
- IoT Chapter
- (Backend) Configuration Management, IoT Discovery - UNIS
- (Backend) IoT Broker, IoT Broker - NEC
- (Backend) Device Management, IDAS DCA - TID
- (Gateway) Protocol Adapter, ZPA / Telecom Italia / EPCGE / Orange
- Security Chapter
- Security Monitoring / Android Vulnerability Assessment, Ovaldroid / Inria
- Identity Management, GCP / DT
- Identity Management, One-IDM / NSN
- Identity Management, DigitalSelf / NSN
- Malware Detection Service (Opt), Morphus / Inria
- I2ND Chapter
- Cloud Proxy
- (I2ND) Network Information and Control (NetIC-VNP), Altoclient/ALU-D
- (I2ND) Network Information and Control (NetIC-OFNIC), VNP/NSN
- (I2ND) Network Information and Control (NetIC-altoclient), VNEIC/ALU-I
- (I2ND) Service Connectivity Capability and Control (S3C), S3C / DT
- Tools
- Trace Analyzer, IBM Israel
Then there are specific questions for the second group:
- Cloud Chapter
- Why having a DCRM by IBM and one by Intel? Differences?
- Object Storage GEi by IBM:?? Status?
- Edgelets Manager by Thales: not in the Catalogue?
- Data Chapter
- UDA – unstructured data analysis by ATOS?? Status?
- Apps Chapter
- Relation Mediator_TI by Telecom Italia and SETHA2 by Thales?
- IoT Chapter
- (Gateway) Device Management, Gateway Device Management / Franhoufer: not in the Catalogue?
- Test and evaluation server environment for NGSI by SAP?? Status?
- Template Handler by SAP?? Status?
- Security Chapter
- KeyRock by UPM?? Status?
- Access Proxy by UPM?? Status?
- MiWi Chapter
- Where are Advanced Middleware, 2D-UI, 3D-UI, Synchronization, Cloud Rendering, Display as a Service, GIS Data Provider, POI Data Provider, 2D-3D-Capture, Augmented Reality, Real-Virtual Interaction, Virtual Character, Interface Designer? Status?
Best regards,
Arian
-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:09 PM
To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT)
Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA
Subject: GEs to discuss in the review meeting
Dear Arian,
As you can easily gather, we are focused on the review now and there is
an important item we would like to prepare properly. Although we
understand that all GEs could be subject to discussion, we would like to
know as much as we can in advance. What GEs you have in mind to discuss
in particular? This would greatly help us to concentrate efforts and
provide a more accurate reply to your questions
This is particularly relevant in the case of the partners who are not
directly represented at the review meeting (you can infer this from the
attendee list). If there are questions for them, it would seriously
help to make the meeting more productive (or who knows if this could
even motivate some extra partners to join the review, given the case)
Best regards
Miguel
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco
_/ _/ _/ _/ Telefónica Distrito Telefónica
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigación y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9
_/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicación S/N
_/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain)
Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77
e-mail: mcp at tid.es<mailto:mcp at tid.es>
Follow FI-WARE on the net
Website: http://www.fi-ware.eu
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Fiware
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
----------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra 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
________________________________
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/attachments/20131219/ead0d066/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy