We use proprietary and third party's cookies to improve your experience and our services, identifying your Internet Browsing preferences on our website; develop analytic activities and display advertising based on your preferences. If you keep browsing, you accept its use. You can get more information on our Cookie Policy
Cookies Policy
Open Call FAQ - FIWARE Forge Wiki

Open Call FAQ

From FIWARE Forge Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


FAQ for Open Call 3

What is the budget limit per proposal to the open call?

The maximum funding of the proposal would be up to 4.2 Million €.

Can we have a private conference call with the technical teams to clarify in detail the technical aspects of the call and/or the adequateness of my prospective proposal?

All queries have to go through the channels specified in the Open Call (e-mail addresses and help desk phone number). There is a dedicated e-mail address that can be used to forward specific questions of a technical nature:
  • fiware-opencall-help@lists.fi-ware.eu


My company could be interested in creating a trial environment but only focused on the results of the security chapter. Could this approach make sense for the OpenCall? Is it better to search for other partners with interests in other chapters?

The objectives of the call are not constrained to a chapter but rather the whole platform and the Open Innovation Lab.
Proposals not covering the full scope of FI-WARE are seriously flawed and will therefore have fewer chances of being successful.


What is the limit of the number of partners for a proposal?

As expressed in the Guide for Applicants “Proposals may be submitted by one single organization or by a small consortium. Indeed, it is expected that proposals to FI-WARE Open Calls are not submitted by large consortia”.
Proposals made by a single proposer will not be penalized on the grounds of not having formed a consortium. There is not a formal limit but it is strongly advised to keep the number of partners down to a minimum.


Should the proposal be prepared as only one member or should it be prepared as a FP7 proposal with several partners and different roles?

The goal of the Open Call is to help FI-WARE. The number of partners (one or more) is indifferent as long as the goals we specify are attained. Large consortia are strongly discouraged, we already have a consortium and the new participant will simply join it as one more partner.

Will the standard consortium building rules apply where the consortium should be formed by a minimum 3 partners from different countries? Or is it acceptable if the consortium is formed by 2 partners from the same country?

As previously stated, there is no need to have more than one partner but nothing precludes from doing so. FI-WARE has already a well balanced representation of different roles and nationalities so there is no need to look at this in the proposals to the Open Call. For instance, whether 2 partners are from the same country or not is completely irrelevant. What is sought is adequateness and soundness in the proposal.


I am from Mexico, is it is possible to participate in a consortium with other European partners? do we have to be the leader of the consortium?

Any legal entity established in an FP7 International Cooperation Partner Country (ICPC) can be eligible for funding under a FI-WARE Open Call (check "Cooperation Work Programme 2011 - General Annexes" document at the original FI-WARE call web site linked at http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-2011-ICT-FI for a complete list of these countries). The structure of the consortium is indifferent as long as the functionality we need is covered. Please note that we expect a small consortium, even of one single member. Remember that the new participant will simply join FI-WARE's consortium as one more partner.


What the funding rules are for a cost-shared basis?

Information related to funding model can be found in the document "Guide for applicants (Collaborative projects: Large-scale integrating projects - IP)" at the original FI-WARE call web site linked at http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-2011-ICT-FI.


How many face 2 face meetings should we plan to attend in order to make an accurate estimation of travel efforts?

There is not a definite number of travels, that may vary depending on the circumstances of the project in general and the chapter in particular. Take into account that, if successful, you would be requested to come to one or two yearly reviews with the European Commission. The project has plenary meetings (you should plan a one week meeting per year) and meetings dedicated to individual Work Packages too. You may need to plan travels to attend and/or participate in dissemination events.

Is there any cost, regarding usage of collaborative tools adopted in the project that we have to embrace, that we should add in our budget?

No. The collaboration tools under the forge (wiki, documentation manager, ticketing systems, SVN, mailing lists...) used internally are supplied and supported for the whole consortium freely for all the project duration


Submitting a proposal to the current FI-WARE open call ... will prevent us from submitting a proposal to future FI-WARE open calls?

Those who do not succeed in getting selected in an Open Call have the right to submit further proposals to the next Open Calls.
There is a particular case for those who get selected: if one of the partners who joined after the first call is also found to be capable of doing the work foreseen in the second. In this case, it would be possible for the project to cancel [part of] the second call as it is no longer needed, FI-WARE would have an existing partner who can do the work. Provided that the EC and FI-WARE give their approval, the work could be given to the new partner.
This particular case does not apply to the original FI-WARE consortium for two basic reasons.
  • If there was an existing partner already in the consortium capable of doing the work then we wouldn't have needed an open call in the first place
  • An existing partner would have inside information about the project and links with the other partners. A partner shouldn't be allowed to submit proposals to guarantee fairness and equal opportunities


Which is the percentage of funding from the European Commission? Who is going to contribute with the rest of the costs?

The “Guide for applicants (Collaborative projects: Large-scale integrating projects – IP)” http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-2011-ICT-FI states that :
The requested EC contribution shall be determined by applying the upper funding limits indicated below, per activity and per participant to the costs accepted by the Commission, or to the flat rates or lump sums.
Maximum reimbursement rates of eligible costs
  • Research and technological development = 50% or 75%*
  • Demonstration activities = 50%
  • Other activities (including management) = 100%
(*) For participants that are non profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organizations and SMEs.
The European Community financial contribution is funding, the rest of the cost must be assumed by the participant. It may not have the purpose or effect of producing a profit for the participants.

Is the EU contribution a loan?

The EU contribution is funding that covers part of the eligible costs.
All the costs have to be approved by European Commission. If the work is rejected, the payment will have to be reimbursed.


Would be a successfully proposal if the participants are only SMEs?

The objective of the open call is to add new participants to a consolidated consortium. The selection of new participants will depend on functional coverage and the quality of the proposals.
It is not relevant if there are no big companies, the size of the consortium or the variety of the partners' nationality.


If our proposal is selected, should we be integrated as full right partners of the FI-WARE consortium via amendment?

Yes, a new amendment will be needed to include new beneficiaries to the current consortium.


How many projects will be funded with the 4,2M€, one or several?

The number of proposals will be decided depending on the area and characteristics. It could be 1 or several winning proposals.


Would be appropriate targeting other continents in dissemination, in the sense of organising events there or mini-contests in order to foster the reuse of FI-WARE platform?

Yes, but we should focus on Europe


FAQ applicable to previous Calls

Here we keep old FAQ that made sense in the context of Open Call 1 and 2 but do not address questions applicable to the present call (Call 3)

I have a functionality that is related to the topics in the Open Call, can I submit a proposal?

Even in the case you believe that you currently have a product that covers all the features/functions described in the list of Epics demanded for a topic, you should estimate the necessary efforts to adapt your product so that it can be integrated with the rest of the FI-WARE platform. This besides the efforts to carry out other standard activities, as described in the Guide for Applicants (Communication, Collaboration, Dissemination, Exploitation and Standardization WPs)
In addition to the above considerations, bear in mind that we are looking for proposals that actually address the features/functions described in the list of Epics demanded for each topic. We are not looking for proposals addressing “related” functionality or functionality in a “related” area.

You refer to the concept of FI-WARE Testbed in the FI-WARE Product Vision. Should we include efforts for integration of results of our project in such a Testbed?

Yes. The providers of all Generic Enablers are fully responsible for the integration of their components on the Testbed. The Guide for Applicants clearly states it:"Note that it is assumed that efforts declared for each task of these RTD WPs include the necessary PMs needed for the integration of results (developed components) in the FI-WARE Testbed, as well as the participation in global technical coordination activities."
Our estimate is that an approximate amount of 10-12% of the PM devoted to the technical Work Packages should go here.
If the GE you are going to contribute needs software licenses take into account that you will have to provide them for the testbed.


What are the kind of global technical coordination activities where we should participate in ? Is there any deliverable we should plan contributing to ?

This will be detailed during the negotiation phase in case your proposal gets selected. 10-12% of the PMs you allocate to RTD activities will be booked to support these activities, as mentioned above. Following is a list of some of the activities you may anticipate will be considered as part of your contribution to global technical activities:
  • contribution to FI-WARE Architecture, not only regarding description of the GE(s) you will contribute but also reviewing of the whole Architecture (see FI-WARE Architecture)
  • contribution to the definition of the FI-WARE Backlog, particularly with respect to entries associated to requirements on the GE(s) you are contributing, including entries linked to integration with other GE(s)
  • contribution to the FI-WARE Technical Roadmap definition (see FI-WARE Technical Roadmap)
  • contribution to state of the art analysis, mostly focused on the topic area where your GE(s) fit


Do I need to estimate effort regarding support activities?

Yes. FI-WARE is going to create a Testbed environment where your Generic Enabler/s will be deployed and made available to users (application developers). They will use them to carry out experiments related to their test scenarios. They will doubtlessly need our support to make the process feasible.
Such efforts do not need to be specified explicitly but take into account that this part of the work must be included in the PM of the technical Work Packages (all but the standard Work Packages related to Project Management, Communication, Collaboration & Dissemination and Exploitation and Standardization).


Is there any particular license model or IPR management model we have to comply with?

IPRs will be managed according to the corresponding Grant Agreement, Consortium Agreement and Collaboration Agreement, to which the new partners shall adhere. In particular, specifications of GEs must be publicly available on FI-WARE’s website/wiki and be royalty-free. Contributed reference implementations of these GEs should be licensed free of charge to projects funded under the FI-PPP Programme and commercialized under Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) conditions elsewhere.


May we submit a proposal just to a subset of Epics for a given topic?

As per the Guide for Applicants, "it is expected that proposals will be submitted to a single topic, covering all or part of the Epics associated to that topic." This means that a proposal that addresses a number of topics but leaves part of them out will not be dismissed for this reason.
The note on the Evaluation Form("when a proposal only partially addresses the topics, this condition will be reflected in the scoring of this criterion") may lead to confusion. It comes from the standard template of the EC for Call Evaluation. In the context of the 1st FI-WARE Open Call, our FI-WARE Epics map to the general concept of "topic" in Framework Programmes. In other words: interpret it as "if you address one of the Epics partially, this will have an impact on your scoring"

We do not have a baseline asset in a given topic but we may have a good know-how on the matter and believe we can deliver a component in the defined timeframe covering the proposed Epics ... may we submit a proposal?

As long a the proposal covers what is requested, this is an acceptable option.


Can we propose working on an existing open source product, not necessarily developed by us, so that we evolve it to comply with the Epics specified for a topic?

As long a the proposal covers what is requested, this is an acceptable option.


What is the impact of the FRAND license on the specifications and on our implementation?

FI-WARE GE specifications are open, i.e., public and royalty-free. This is independent from the particular license terms of a particular implementation of the specifications, including reference implementations developed under the umbrella of the FI-WARE project.
In order to evaluate the impact of licensing software under FRAND conditons you may refer to description of such conditions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing


Is licensing of the target software as open source required ? If not ... Does it add points to the proposal?

No. Certainly, open source software may give more flexibility regarding promotion of results as well as evolution and involvement of third parties in the future.


Are there any limitations regarding the open source license linked to developed software?

Given the open nature of the Future Internet and the important role that Open Source plays for dissemination and rapid uptake and exploitation of project results, the project will establish a process to ensure the correct choice of licenses and compliance within the project and enabling compliant use across subsequent uses of deliverables during the duration of the FI-PPP. This management process will also deal with issues of license compatibility.
The Parties acknowledge that the use within the FI PPP of Software that is "open source" (as defined at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php), and/or the release of Foreground upon license terms associated with such open source software, may have benefits for the conduct of the Project and promote the Use and dissemination of results.
The parties acknowledge the existence of different business models regarding the exploitation of the results of the project, esp. the software deliverables. Software is disseminated and exploited under different licences, according to different business models.
Different licenses (e.g. proprietary or open source) may be incompatible with each other with regards the combination of software components coming from different parties. As soon as such situations occur during the work of the project, the involved parties shall determine if the licenses proposed for the different components allow for their intended combination, and in the case of incompatibility, the parties will resolve the matter by choosing the same or compatible licenses.


Implementation of the target GEs may require more then just the EPICs referenced in the call ... Are you anticipating a wider set of EPICs to be included as foreseen by the proposal, or do you have a rigorous approach and only require support for the proposed EPICs ?

The referenced Epics are just an starting point. It is supposed that this Epics will be further refined in subsequent sprints until you first identify Features (which would enable to document what would be delivered in planned releases) and, at some given point in time, User-Stories. As a result of this process, Epics to be linked to another GEs in FI-WARE may be identified because we need them to support certain functionality you have to rely on. Bear in mind that refinement of Epics within a given sprint may lead to new Epics so the initial set of Epics may become larger during this process.
Of course, you can describe how you plan to cover the functionality described in the referenced Epics within your proposal and even anticipate what other GEs in FI-WARE you may need to integrate with. Indeed, this is what is expected and may help to score the technical merits of your proposal.
Please check how the Agile methodology is being used in FI-WARE at: http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Agile_Development_Methodology


Is there a visual representation available of the links between all EPICS within FI-WARE and definitely within the technical chapter on Applications/Services Ecosystem and Delivery Framework in FI-WARE ? How do the EPICS of this open call link to other EPICS in the corresponding Technical Chapter?

No. There is no visual representation for the Epics relationships. This information is rather implicit and not systematically captured.
The epics may have some dependencies according to the development process/plan. Epics are a concept of agile development. If you are looking for inter-dependencies of the GE than you should have a look at the architecture descriptions in the Wiki.
Bear in mind that FI-WARE is not developing Generic Enablers from the scratch but from a set of selected products (assets) resulted from previous projects, many of which hadn't been developed using Agile. If we had started development of every FI-WARE Generic Enabler (that's the way we name components in FI-WARE) from the scratch, the FI-WARE GE backlogs would contain Themes/Epics/Features/User-stories that, all together, would summarize the whole functionality of FI-WARE. But this is not the case. Therefore, trying to link available Epics would have a limited use.


Within FI-WARE, for which EPICS there is an implementation available? Where to find this implementation? What has already been implemented and what is ongoing?

As explained in the response to the previous question, FI-WARE is not developing GEs from the scratch but relying on a number of existing assets brought by partners of the original FI-WARE consortia. When creating the backlog for a given FI-WARE GE, we have considered that it should contain the Themes/Epics/Features/User-stories that, at the start of the FI-WARE project, map to "functionality to be developed" in the reference implementation of the GE we are building based on a number of baseline products. We didn't capture all the functionality that was already implemented in the baseline products through entries in the FI-WARE Backlog. Therefore, Epics in the FI-WARE Backlog refer to functionality which is under development (ongoing) within the FI-WARE project.


If any APIs are not available at the moment, how to use them?

You should assume that a first reference implementation of APIs you may require from other GEs will be available at the time your participation within FI-WARE starts or, if not, will be defined in collaboration with you. A high-level definition of some APIs can be found taking a look at the FI-WARE Architecture description available on the public FI-WARE Wiki.


How is a reference architecture defined? If a reference architecture is to be delivered as a part of the project (addressed in this open call), what can it look like?

You can check what has been delivered regarding the Reference Architecture of Chapters and FI-WARE GEs taking a look at the current FI-WARE Architecture description available on the public FI-WARE Wiki.


As part of our work we propose the specification of requirements and state-of-the-art analysis of some components. Should we define separate WPs where these activities would be carried out and lead to generation of related deliverables ?

The RTD WP template (namely form 1.2b as also instructed in the Form B document) is oriented to defining GEs but does not fit the goal of delivering such deliverables. In other words, is it allowed to define RTD work packages whose structure and deliverables deviate from the rigid template provided in the guidelines for applicants ?
As stated in one of the previous responses you should plan that 10-12% of the PMs you allocate to RTD activities will be booked to support global technical coordination activities, which already has a dedicated WP defined in FI-WARE. Following is a list of some of the activities you may anticipate will be considered as part of your contribution to global technical activities. The specification of requirements as well as state-of-the-art analysis will fit there.


How many specifications do we have to cover with my proposal? Is there a threshold below which my proposal will not be successful?

There are no coverage thresholds below which your proposal will be rejected. The higher the functional coverage, the better. There are not any stoppers as such. The reviewers will select the best proposals of each topic and a higher coverage will be a significant plus.
The Guide for Applicants states that: " the FI-WARE project will normally select the set of proposals, among those with the highest overall score, which can provide the best coverage of Epics linked to a topic ".

We are preparing a proposal addressed to the Stream oriented topic. Should we list in the proposal a set of specific hardware devices that we plan to integrate in our framework ? or can just list the types of hardware devices (i.e. grouping them by functionality: encoder using codec x or y / decoder for codec x or y ... capture device for PC with OS x and so on...)

This is not about developing hardware and any such thing but about providing good interfaces to hardware that may be available on devices.
How this support is described is up to the proposers.


P. 10 of the "Guide for applicants" states "a small proposal .. could consist of one work package only". The rest of the document seems to imply that at least one WP is needed for RTD, Comm-Collab-Diss & Exploitation and Standardisation. This suggests that a small proposal must consist of three work packages, not one work package only. Could you clarify?

The proposal should comprise all the WPs for which a template has been provided (check guidelines for applicants).
The statement about one single WP was referred to the most technical (RTD) WPs where Epics are supposed to be addressed.
You may go for one single WP with respect to them, overall if you are just covering a subset of Epics in your proposal.


We are preparing a proposal on the topic Stream-Oriented GEs. Reviewing FI-WARE security enablers, I cannot find any feature suitable for implementing DRM mechanism. Would it be possible to be more specific on what are you expecting?

There is no support regarding DRM within FI-WARE. However, implementation of stream-oriented GEs targeting the defined Epics should be able to connect to DRM systems and content protection algorithms provided by 3rd parties in a way that is compatible with identity management, authentication, authorization and access control mechanisms defined in the Security Chapter.


Where is it stated that, when it comes to commercialisation, the GE reference implementation contributor will NOT be responsible for securing licences for any third-party IPR (i.e. patents) implemented by the reference implementation of their own foreground?

Article 4.1 of the FIWARE CA clearly states the rules regarding implementations using FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications. To that effect a legal notice is now being prepared to clearly establish the terms and conditions applicable to each FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications. This Legal Notices will always respect the rules established in clause 4.1 of the FIWARE CA:
"For the sake of clarity, Parties signing this CA as well as any other third party may, subject to additional conditions or agreement where requested by a Party/ the Parties (provided that the right to obtain Access Rights granted under this Agreement must not be negatively affected by such request), develop and release implementations of the FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications on a royalty-free basis."
Questions related to liability, in case of third party claims, are clearly defined in the corresponding clauses of CA (clause 5.1.1) and the GA (Annex II 42.2) in connection with the general liability rules of clause 5.2 and the Belgian law provisions.
Please take into account the special rules affecting the introduction in the project of software subject to Controlled Licensed Terms (i.e. sw subject to GPL) in clause 4.2.7.3. It´s not a question of making it clear but of following the rules that govern the introduction of this Controlled Licensed Term software.
You should carefully review what is stated in the Consortium Agreement and the Colaboration Agreement regarding IPR and licencing. You will have to sign both agreement in case you join the FI-WARE project. You can review an extract of the relevant parts of these agreements at: http://www.fi-ware.eu/consortium-collaboration-agreement/


Where is there a one to one relationship between task and Epic on the deliverable table?

The table of deliverables linked to each RTD WPs are already predefined. This is because what is expected is that your activities within FI-WARE get synchronized with the overall planning, deliverables and milestones already defined in the FI-WARE project.
Actually, the work you need to do regarding RTD WPs is to detail the tasks you are going to cover. The tasks in RTD WPs should map 1:1 to Epics linked to the topic you are addressing.
It is crucial to describe how you plan to address changes or development of new/complementary modules in the particular technology/product you are proposing as baseline asset so that it ends up supporting the functionality described in the Epic.
The more details you provide in this respect and the more credible is what you propose, the better scoring you will obtain.
There is not any relationship you have to establish between tasks in RTD WPs and deliverables in those WPs

If I identify tasks that do not map to epics in my plan, do I have to reserve budget for them? Eg. demonstrator applications (important for dissemination)

You should not reserve budget for developing extra demonstrators. The demonstrators will be planned and coordinated at overall FI-WARE level. It is assumed that a % of the budget you have assigned to RTD activities will be devoted to contribution to demonstrators.
It is highly advisable that all the activities are embedded in one of the tasks linked to Epics you define.
Personal tools
Create a book