[ecop-poct] Re: WP structure
- From: Christian Buckl <buckl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:17:01 +0100 (CET)
Dear all,
actually the main motivation behind my suggestion was to split the work
packages into three (or four) big blocks:
Processes, Technologies, Case Studies (or Reference Architectures) and
Administration (this was not mentioned in the slides since I always assume to
have these work packages).
The block processes contains not only the work package tools, but also the work
packages development process. If we consider Plug&Play functionality, the
phases development and run-time of a system can not be considered anymore as
separate. Hence, the traditional development processes can not be applied 100%
and we have to rethink these processes.
The block technologies contains the necessary work packages to implement
interoperability and autonomous operation. This will definitely include
middleware and application issues, but hardware aspects might be also relevant
(might also depend on the partners, whether they want to develop hardware).
The third block Reference Architectures (could be also renamed Case Studies)
would be responsible for stating the requirements, but also evaluate the
results of the first two block.
A big advantage with respect to the previous proposal would be that all work
packages could start at month 1 and end at month 36. This simplifies in my
opinion the planning of the contributions for everyone.
The previous structure could be mapped as follows:
WP 1:
- Requirements would move into the block Reference Architectures
- Quality assurance: I did not get the intention of this part, but I would
either move it to Project Management or delete it
- Conceptual foundations -> WP 1 Development Process
WP 2:
- Service Oriented Architecture -> WP 3 Middleware Architecture
- Interfaces -> WP 3 Middleware Architecture
- Modeling Methodologies -> WP 4 Services
WP 3:
- Run-time Platform Solution -> WP 3 Middleware Architecture
WP 4:
- Tool Chain Solution -> WP 2 Development Tools
WP 5:
- Proof-of-Concept, Deployment and Case Studies -> 3rd Block Reference
Architectures
WP 6 Dissemination and Exploitation -> remains
WP 7 Project Management -> remains
Best regards,
Christian
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Olli Vistbacka" <olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx>
> An: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 14:58:42
> Betreff: [ecop-poct] WP structure
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I’d like to start a discussion about the Work Package structure.
>
>
>
> · Christian, please shortly elaborate the proposed structure
>
> · Everybody, please comment
>
>
>
> As a baseline there are two structures.
>
>
>
> Fortiss proposal
>
>
>
> Processes:
>
> WP 1 Development Process
>
> WP 2 Development Tools
>
>
>
> Technologies:
>
> WP 3 Middleware Architecture
>
> WP 4 Services
>
> WP 5 Hardware Components
>
>
>
> Reference Architecture:
>
> WP 6 Land Machines
>
> WP 7 Mining
>
> WP 8 Automotive
>
>
>
> Structure from Call 2010 proposal (details available in Call 2010 FPP
> in Dropbox)
>
>
>
> WP 1 Requirements, Quality Assurance and Conceptual Foundations
>
> WP 2 Service-Oriented Architecture, Interfaces, and Modeling
> Methodologies
>
> WP 3 Run-time Platform Solution
>
> WP 4 Tool Chain Solution
>
> WP 5 Proof-of-Concept, Deployment and Case Studies
>
> WP 6 Dissemination and Exploitation
>
> WP 7 Project Management
>
>
>
> br,
>
> --
>
> Olli Vistbacka
>
> Project Manager, M.Sc. (Eng.)
>
>
>
> Phone +358 40 569 1043
>
> olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx
>
> http://www.hermia.fi/in_english/
--
Dr. Christian Buckl
Cyber-Physical Systems
fortiss gemeinnützige GmbH
An-Institut der TU München
Raum 203, Guerickestr.25, 80805 München
Tel. +49 (89) 3 60 35 22-16
Fax. +49 (89) 3 60 35 22-50
mailto:buckl@xxxxxxxxxxx
fortiss GmbH
Boltzmannstrasse 3
85748 Garching
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Harald Rueß
Amtsgericht München
HRB 176633
USt-ID-Nr.: DE263907002
Steuer-Nr.: 143/237/25900
Other related posts:
