| Re: [m2m-iwg] Relevance of Polarsys |
Mike/all,
Thanks for the input.
Eclipse has seen things like OHF or OFMP in the past, where industry related projects or initiatives went either nowhere or in a different direction.
So it isn't weird to be curious to see what happens there.
Especially the "Embedded" part is a little vague, while emphasis on Modeling and EMF based Generation seem more obvious from what the involved parties do so far.
One or two as you probably know seem to have a few too many "pots" on the fire, e.g. Atos lags progress in much smaller projects like Doc2Model which I see timing out in regular intervals:-/
Other players in fact did a lot in M2M related areas like Unit type-safety, Thales had Unit-API co-founder Jean-Marie work on implementations for Java, or equivalent efforts using C/C++. If there's interest in what's done here or at UOMo, including the Business module, we're certainly open to synergies.
Werner
Send m2m-iwg mailing list submissions to
m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
m2m-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
m2m-iwg-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of m2m-iwg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Relevance of Polarsys for M2M (UOMo)
2. Re: Relevance of Polarsys for M2M (Mike Milinkovich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 18:32:59 +0100
From: UOMo <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [m2m-iwg] Relevance of Polarsys for M2M
Message-ID:
<CAAGawe11ozUM3nHOXMmZseP5NJFEkapG5RyQYnSgjRECs5GuWw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,
I was curious about how PolarSys fits in with both M2M and Automotive?
So far, it sounds very vague and fuzzy, more like a license thing than
actual technology.
"Embedded and Mission Critical Stuff that must be supported for 80 or 100
years", sounds more like trying to offer support contracts on top of other
projects and initiatives like M2M or Automotive. The whole charter and
rather excessive fee-structure without a clear prospect of what you're
paying for
http://www.eclipse.org/org/industry-workgroups/polarsys_charter.php also
makes Polarsys seem more like a cash-cow than something technically
relevant to the future of M2M.
As Benjamin is Mentor of the first Polarsys project, can you shed some
light on that, Ben?
Thanks,
Werner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/m2m-iwg/attachments/20130202/9faa050d/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 19:51:28 -0500
From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'m2m Industry Working Group'" <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] Relevance of Polarsys for M2M
Message-ID: <001c01ce01a8$9d4a2a60$d7de7f20$@eclipse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Werner,
Why do you think that Polarsys needs to justify its existence by being
relevant to the future of M2M? They are two completely different groups with
completely different goals and technologies. There is absolutely no reason
why Polarsys has to "fit" with any other IWG, or for that matter any other
Eclipse project. Overlap, confusion and outright competition is perfectly
acceptable within the bounds of Eclipse. Eclipse is not a corporation that
has to present a cohesive "story" with a "consistent architecture" to the
marketplace.
That said, there have been numerous cordial conversations between the
various groups, and we certainly expect that to continue.
Asking the m2m list about the Polarsys business model is a little weird, no?
For the record, the Polarsys fees are required because they want to build
and maintain a separate forge, brand and namespace. That requires resources
above and beyond what the Eclipse Foundation provides its projects. Polarsys
is most certainly not a cash cow.
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223
From: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of UOMo
Sent: February-02-13 12:33 PM
To: m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [m2m-iwg] Relevance of Polarsys for M2M
Hi,
I was curious about how PolarSys fits in with both M2M and Automotive?
So far, it sounds very vague and fuzzy, more like a license thing than
actual technology.
"Embedded and Mission Critical Stuff that must be supported for 80 or 100
years", sounds more like trying to offer support contracts on top of other
projects and initiatives like M2M or Automotive. The whole charter and
rather excessive fee-structure without a clear prospect of what you're
paying for
http://www.eclipse.org/org/industry-workgroups/polarsys_charter.php also
makes Polarsys seem more like a cash-cow than something technically relevant
to the future of M2M.
As Benjamin is Mentor of the first Polarsys project, can you shed some light
on that, Ben?
Thanks,
Werner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/m2m-iwg/attachments/20130202/49965f71/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
m2m-iwg mailing list
m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-iwg
End of m2m-iwg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 5
**************************************