Hi Thiago,
Very much appreciated for your detailed feedback. Sure we can consider Cloud to be hybrid the way you expressed. Please find my answers in same order below - [Thiago] 1) can you provide a little more detail on the projects? What activities and subsystems do you expect to be inside each? The distinction between Device Framework and Device Platform escapes me. Each project here is software functionality layer of product. IMHO activities and subsystems per layer will be as below - Device : Connectivity, Protocol & Device Security implementation. Bridge : Translators or Plugins & Bridge Security implementation. Cloud / Fog : Cloud/Fog interface, User/Device Management, Data Analytics, Cloud/Fog Security implementation. Device framework here means IoTivity or IoTivity constrained. Which is actually just library to be used on top preferred operating system. Device platform here means a Kernel. There can be solutions which come packaged (Kernel + Framework) to be used for Chipset vendors at ease and quickly. This code may or may not be hosted in IoTivity git. But if there is a relation with IoTivity (aka OCF), there can be collateral information in IoTivity website. [Thiago] 2) the subcommittees look fine and they should all exist. Event and Branding is not a technical task, but more on that see the next email (replying to Uze). Uze must have responded to it by now. Regards Dwarka ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Software R&D Center | Software Strategy Team | Open Source Group Open Connectivity Foundation - OpenSource WG Vice-Chair | Spec. Cord. TG Chair Iotivity Steering Group - Advisory Committee -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:12 AM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Cc: Dwarkaprasad Dayama <dwarka.dayama at samsung.com> Subject: Re: [dev] Fwd: [isg] Notes from ISG call 2017-04-10/11 On Monday, 17 April 2017 21:47:57 PDT Dwarkaprasad Dayama wrote: > Hi IoTivity dev community members, > > As shared by Thiago, I am sharing another suggestion for reorg behalf > of Uze. Feedback is welcome to make better open source project organization. Hi Dwarka I was hoping others would have replied by now... no such luck. So I will. I agree we should expand IoTivity activities. Adding more verticals is an aspect you know Intel supports, and I personally think that will add value to the project. The more we support out of the box, the more likely we are to convince others that IoTivity (and by extension OCF) is a good solution for their problem domains. I also think that reaching up to the Cloud and showing what we can do is a good idea. From our research, it looks our competitors -- especially in the Industrial segment -- have a rocky path to reaching there, as their models are not designed for the kind of RESTful communication that the Cloud developers are used to. I will add that Intel is interested also in Fog computing, so making this a hybrid Cloud/Fog makes sense. On the details of the proposal (slide 4): 1) can you provide a little more detail on the projects? What activities and subsystems do you expect to be inside each? The distinction between Device Framework and Device Platform escapes me. 2) the subcommittees look fine and they should all exist. Event and Branding is not a technical task, but more on that see the next email (replying to Uze). On the communication (slide 5): I think the TSC and specifically the TSC Chair should be heard and taken into account in OCF. We'll have to convince them of that. But I don't think mirroring a structure is a good idea -- that's been a source of confusion in the past, with the roles blurred and IoTivity decisions being made in OCF phone calls and meetings. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170421/aee47b25/attachment.html>
