OASIS Transformational Government Framework TC

Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John

Sounds a good way forward to me…   Cheers Colin   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014 9:44 p.m. To: TGF TC List Subject: [tgf] TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John

Producing a Committee Note makes sense to me and should be a useful output to guide the TGF adoption as well. Jenny On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:44 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John

I agree, this sounds like a good solution. Mark On 30 Jun 2014, at 16:59, Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > wrote: Producing a Committee Note makes sense to me and should be a useful output to guide the TGF adoption as well. Jenny On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:44 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John

From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.  Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated. Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> To: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John Attachment: IoT CN scope.docx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

John   The structure looks good to me – thanks.   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 03 July 2014 10:01 To: TGF TC List Subject: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John  

Looks pretty sound to me. Regards, Mark On 3 Jul 2014, at 10:07, Chris Parker < chris.parker@cstransform.com > wrote: John   The structure looks good to me – thanks.   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From:   tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ]   On Behalf Of   John Borras Sent:   03 July 2014 10:01 To:   TGF TC List Subject:   [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From:   John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To:   TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >   Sent:   Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject:   TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John

Hi All,                 I’m still cogitating over the last note and personally still feel that we should incorporate IoT aspects as a new pattern and enhance some of the others. I realise that I’m in the minority (of 1?) and take heart from the statement that a CN public review might highlight aspects for incorporation into a future TGF v3. So I’m happy to support the CN route.   Here are some points that I suggest are be incorporated into the paper that might help to drive out some thoughts:- ·          The need for government to jointly face major challenges in collaboration with other large players such as the energy firms, transport suppliers, the construction industry and international bodies ·          The fact that this will lead onto some complex requirements for those relationships e.g. continuity of participation over long periods of time, the need for cultural change by citizens and businesses ·          That aggregation with services provided by private suppliers is likely to become necessary e.g. share services ( and infrastructure) into the home. These may involve the use of information in new and innovative ways e.g. leverage consumer information for some broader purpose such as an action implying something about a persons state (e.g. as part of an e-Health scenario)when it is accompanied with other information flows.  Incidentally, within the UK, the Technology Strategy Board (i.e. the government) is seeking to address some of these issues via the HyperCat consortium including BT, IBM and others.     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 03 July 2014 10:01 To: TGF TC List Subject: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

Nig I don't think any of us is saying definitely that we will never add anything into the TGF about IoT just that for expediency and also testing the water let's go the CN route and then see what needs to be added at a later date.  As you and others have stressed the IoT is new and requirements and usages are still emerging so we shouldn't rush into writing new mandatory conformance clauses etc until things have become a lot clearer. Thanks for your suggested points and I'll do my best to include them in the initial draft but will be looking for help from all of you to help with the drafting as I'm no expert in this particular field. John From: Greenaway Nigel <Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com> To: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:43 Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things Hi All,                 I’m still cogitating over the last note and personally still feel that we should incorporate IoT aspects as a new pattern and enhance some of the others. I realise that I’m in the minority (of 1?) and take heart from the statement that a CN public review might highlight aspects for incorporation into a future TGF v3. So I’m happy to support the CN route.   Here are some points that I suggest are be incorporated into the paper that might help to drive out some thoughts:- ·          The need for government to jointly face major challenges in collaboration with other large players such as the energy firms, transport suppliers, the construction industry and international bodies ·          The fact that this will lead onto some complex requirements for those relationships e.g. continuity of participation over long periods of time, the need for cultural change by citizens and businesses ·          That aggregation with services provided by private suppliers is likely to become necessary e.g. share services ( and infrastructure) into the home. These may involve the use of information in new and innovative ways e.g. leverage consumer information for some broader purpose such as an action implying something about a persons state (e.g. as part of an e-Health scenario)when it is accompanied with other information flows.  Incidentally, within the UK, the Technology Strategy Board (i.e. the government) is seeking to address some of these issues via the HyperCat consortium including BT, IBM and others.     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 03 July 2014 10:01 To: TGF TC List Subject: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

John,  the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF Jenny On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.  Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated. Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Jenny Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge. John From: Jenny Huang <jenny@ifossfoundation.org> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things John,  the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     IoT implication in Public Sector Services  - a perspective from TGF Jenny On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.  Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated. Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

another thought is   TGF and IoT Governance shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote: Jenny Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge. John From: Jenny Huang <jenny@ifossfoundation.org> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: TGF TC List <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things John,  the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     IoT implication in Public Sector Services  - a perspective from TGF Jenny On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.  Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated. Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org jenny@ifossfoundation.org

Jenny Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible. Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground. John From: Jenny Huang <jenny@ifossfoundation.org> To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things another thought is   TGF and IoT Governance shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote: Jenny Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge. John From: Jenny Huang mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk Cc: TGF TC List mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things John,  the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     IoT implication in Public Sector Services  - a perspective from TGF Jenny On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.  Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated. Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org jenny@ifossfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

John,   Just a couple of thoughts: ·        A couple suggestions for the title: o    Leveraging the IoT with TGF o    Managing the IoT with TGF ·        Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process.    Joe Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner www.mtgmc.com (206) 442-5010 Phone (206) 849-7772 Mobile (206) 442-5011 Fax jwheeler@mtgmc.com   Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer .   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Jenny   Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.   Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.   John ,       From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   another thought is   "TGF and IoT Governance" shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:   Jenny   Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.   John   From: Jenny Huang mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk Cc: TGF TC List mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php       -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org jenny@ifossfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php  

Joe Thanks for your suggestions.  They are in line with my thinking although I would want to use the term Governance rather than Managing the IoT.  A subtle but very important difference. I like the analogy in your third bullet.  I hope we can end up with the TGF being accepted within MENSA! John From: Joseph D. Wheeler <jdw@mtgmc.com> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>; 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014, 3:40 Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things John,   Just a couple of thoughts: ·        A couple suggestions for the title: o    Leveraging the IoT with TGF o    Managing the IoT with TGF ·        Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process.    Joe Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner www.mtgmc.com (206) 442-5010 Phone (206) 849-7772 Mobile (206) 442-5011 Fax jwheeler@mtgmc.com   Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer .   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Jenny   Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.   Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.   John ,       From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   another thought is   TGF and IoT Governance shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:   Jenny   Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.   John   From: Jenny Huang mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk Cc: TGF TC List mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     IoT implication in Public Sector Services  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php       -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php  

Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows. The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.  The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.    If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.  So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 9:05 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things Joe Thanks for your suggestions.  They are in line with my thinking although I would want to use the term Governance rather than Managing the IoT.  A subtle but very important difference. I like the analogy in your third bullet.  I hope we can end up with the TGF being accepted within MENSA! John From: Joseph D. Wheeler <jdw@mtgmc.com> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>; 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014, 3:40 Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things John,   Just a couple of thoughts: ·        A couple suggestions for the title: o    Leveraging the IoT with TGF o    Managing the IoT with TGF ·        Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process.    Joe Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner www.mtgmc.com (206) 442-5010 Phone (206) 849-7772 Mobile (206) 442-5011 Fax jwheeler@mtgmc.com   Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer .   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Jenny   Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.   Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.   John ,       From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   another thought is   TGF and IoT Governance shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:   Jenny   Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.   John   From: Jenny Huang mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk Cc: TGF TC List mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     IoT implication in Public Sector Services  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php       -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php   Attachment: IoT CN scope.docx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

AYE     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 07 July 2014 14:35 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 9:05 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Joe   Thanks for your suggestions.  They are in line with my thinking although I would want to use the term Governance rather than Managing the IoT.  A subtle but very important difference.   I like the analogy in your third bullet.  I hope we can end up with the TGF being accepted within MENSA!   John   From: Joseph D. Wheeler < jdw@mtgmc.com > To: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >; 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014, 3:40 Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   John,   Just a couple of thoughts: ·        A couple suggestions for the title: o   Leveraging the IoT with TGF o   Managing the IoT with TGF ·        Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process.    Joe Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner www.mtgmc.com (206) 442-5010 Phone (206) 849-7772 Mobile (206) 442-5011 Fax jwheeler@mtgmc.com   Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Jenny   Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.   Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.   John,       From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   another thought is   "TGF and IoT Governance" shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:   Jenny   Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.   John   From: Jenny Huang mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk Cc: TGF TC List mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php       -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php       Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

+1   (an IoT style vote :) ) Jenny On 7/7/2014 6:35 AM, John Borras wrote: Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows. The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.  The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.    If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.  So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 9:05 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things Joe Thanks for your suggestions.  They are in line with my thinking although I would want to use the term Governance rather than Managing the IoT.  A subtle but very important difference. I like the analogy in your third bullet.  I hope we can end up with the TGF being accepted within MENSA! John From: Joseph D. Wheeler <jdw@mtgmc.com> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> ; 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014, 3:40 Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things John,   Just a couple of thoughts: ·        A couple suggestions for the title: o    Leveraging the IoT with TGF o    Managing the IoT with TGF ·        Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process.    Joe Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner www.mtgmc.com (206) 442-5010 Phone (206) 849-7772 Mobile (206) 442-5011 Fax jwheeler@mtgmc.com   Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer .   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Jenny   Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.   Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.   John ,       From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   another thought is   TGF and IoT Governance shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus.  other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN: TGF pattern IoT governance IoT ecosystem Public sector services I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF. Regards, Jenny On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:   Jenny   Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.   John   From: Jenny Huang mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk Cc: TGF TC List mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     IoT implication in Public Sector Services  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:   From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php       -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Jenny Huang, Research Director ICT for Sustainable Development iFOSSF.org jenny@ifossfoundation.org

Aye
 
 

Joe
Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner

www.mtgmc.com

(206) 442-5010
Phone
(206) 849-7772
Mobile
(206) 442-5011
Fax
jwheeler@mtgmc.com
 
Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.
 
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer .

 


From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 6:35 AM
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things


 


Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think
the answer to our problem is as follows.


 


The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public
services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how
a lot of the TGF patterns support that need. 


 


The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment. 
This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.   


 


If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next
TC call. 


 


So AYEs/NOs asap please.


 


John


 




From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >
To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 9:05
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things


 




Joe


 


Thanks for your suggestions.  They are in line with my thinking although I would want to use the term Governance rather than Managing
the IoT.  A subtle but very important difference.


 


I like the analogy in your third bullet.  I hope we can end up with the TGF being accepted within MENSA!



 


John


 




From: Joseph D. Wheeler < jdw@mtgmc.com >
To: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >; 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014, 3:40
Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things


 




John,



 


Just a couple of thoughts:


·       
A couple suggestions for the title:


o   Leveraging the IoT with TGF


o   Managing the IoT with TGF


·       
Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing
sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process. 



 



Joe


Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner



www.mtgmc.com



(206) 442-5010
Phone


(206) 849-7772
Mobile


(206) 442-5011
Fax


jwheeler@mtgmc.com


 

Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.

 


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



 




 



From:
tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things






 




Jenny




 




Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need
a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.





 




Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.




 




John,



 


 




 






From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org >
To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things




 






another thought is   "TGF and IoT Governance"

shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus. 


other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN:



TGF pattern
IoT governance
IoT ecosystem
Public sector services

I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become
more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF.

Regards,
Jenny

On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:




 







Jenny




 




Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.




 




John




 






From: Jenny Huang
mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org
To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk

Cc: TGF TC List
mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things




 





John, 




 




the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF




 




Jenny





 



On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:




 







From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little
further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max. 





 




Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.




 




Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects
that will need to be included.




 




John




 






From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >
To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44
Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things




 






Colleagues




       




Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management
pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.




 




Our conclusions were broadly as follows:




- the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required;




- the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and
not the technical issues;




- most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread
across a number of patterns;




- we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this
context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs;




- the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:




     -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0




     -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained
by having to write formal conformance clauses




     - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented
by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward




     - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for
a future TGF v3.0 




 




I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call. 





 




We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would
be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.




 




John






 












---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php





 





 










 



--

Jenny Huang, Research Director
ICT for Sustainable Development
iFOSSF.org
mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org






--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php






 













 









 

Aye
 


From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Monday, 7 July, 2014 06:35
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things


 


Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think
the answer to our problem is as follows.


 


The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public
services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how
a lot of the TGF patterns support that need. 


 


The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment. 
This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.   


 


If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next
TC call. 


 


So AYEs/NOs asap please.


 


John


 




From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >
To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 9:05
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things


 




Joe


 


Thanks for your suggestions.  They are in line with my thinking although I would want to use the term Governance rather than Managing
the IoT.  A subtle but very important difference.


 


I like the analogy in your third bullet.  I hope we can end up with the TGF being accepted within MENSA!



 


John


 




From: Joseph D. Wheeler < jdw@mtgmc.com >
To: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >; 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Saturday, 5 July 2014, 3:40
Subject: RE: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things


 




John,



 


Just a couple of thoughts:


·       
A couple suggestions for the title:


o   Leveraging the IoT with TGF


o   Managing the IoT with TGF


·       
Nig’s comments got me thinking that the IoT will be a great test (or great application) of the TGF as the IoT evolves.  I see it working much like brain development: growing
sensory and motor capacity; development of synapses (connections); pruning of those connections thought to be useless; and then (hopefully) homeostasis of that development and pruning.  The value proposition of TGF will come in how it enables that process. 



 



Joe


Joseph D.K. Wheeler, Senior Partner



www.mtgmc.com



(206) 442-5010
Phone


(206) 849-7772
Mobile


(206) 442-5011
Fax


jwheeler@mtgmc.com


 

Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.

 


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



 




 



From:
tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 8:44 AM
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things






 




Jenny




 




Agree leaving the title until the end would probably make it easier.  Unfortunately to get the CN template from TC Admin they need
a title and abbreviation to allocate the filename, URL etc and changing either after that is virtually impossible.





 




Thanks for continuing to scratch your head over this.  Let's get a few ideas from others and see if there's any common ground.




 




John,



 


 




 






From: Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org >
To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 16:25
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things




 






another thought is   "TGF and IoT Governance"

shorter is indeed the challenge, it needs to be end user friendly so it needs to be somewhat descriptive what it is, at the same time it needs to stay true within its scope and focus. 


other suggestion is to leave the title to the end, it may become easier once the paper is done.  It may be helpful to identify a few key words to help stay focused, here are some that  I observed for the purpose of the CN:



TGF pattern
IoT governance
IoT ecosystem
Public sector services

I have my sympathy to Nig & John's comment in other email, agree part of this initial positioning/educational purpose of the CN is also for us to become
more clear about the implication & issues to identify future work for TGF.

Regards,
Jenny

On 7/4/2014 1:03 AM, John Borras wrote:




 







Jenny




 




Thanks for the suggested title.  Perhaps a bit of a mouthful, something shorter would be better but coming up with that will be a challenge.




 




John




 






From: Jenny Huang
mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org
To: John Borras mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk

Cc: TGF TC List
mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 18:34
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things




 





John, 




 




the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF




 




Jenny





 



On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:




 







From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little
further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max. 





 




Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.




 




Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects
that will need to be included.




 




John




 






From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >
To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44
Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things




 






Colleagues




       




Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management
pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.




 




Our conclusions were broadly as follows:




- the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required;




- the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and
not the technical issues;




- most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread
across a number of patterns;




- we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this
context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs;




- the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:




     -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0




     -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained
by having to write formal conformance clauses




     - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented
by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward




     - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for
a future TGF v3.0 




 




I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call. 





 




We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would
be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.




 




John






 












---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php





 





 










 



--

Jenny Huang, Research Director
ICT for Sustainable Development
iFOSSF.org
mailto:jenny@ifossfoundation.org






--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php






 













 









 

Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.  I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.  Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied. Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text. Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2. As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.   John From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows. The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.  The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.    If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.  So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Attachment: TGF-IoT-Impact-v1.0-wd01.doc Description: MS-Word document

John   Thanks, this looks a great first cut.  I’ll have a more detailed look through and see if I can offer helpful comments, but I think this is very much in the right ball park.   On Section 3, I think all the existing patterns you mention are very relevant to managing the IoT ecosystem.  In addition, I’d cite:   ·         B1 Vision for Transformation ·         B3 Transformational Operating Model ·         S1 Stakeholder Empowerment ·         S5 Channel Mapping ·         S6 Channel Transformation   That gives a total of 11 patterns to highlight in Section 3.  I’d be happy to have a go at illustrating for one or two of these how we might write up Section 3 content in a way which highlights why the pattern is relevant to addressing IoT issues and which recommends how the pattern should be deployed in an IoT context – but then I’d hope we could divide out the eleven between a few of us on the TC.  Does that sound a sensible way forward?   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John  

Chris Deal. I guess when we've completed Section 3 we might comes across a few more Recommendations. John From: Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>; 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2014, 16:52 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft John   Thanks, this looks a great first cut.  I’ll have a more detailed look through and see if I can offer helpful comments, but I think this is very much in the right ball park.   On Section 3, I think all the existing patterns you mention are very relevant to managing the IoT ecosystem.  In addition, I’d cite:   ·         B1 Vision for Transformation ·         B3 Transformational Operating Model ·         S1 Stakeholder Empowerment ·         S5 Channel Mapping ·         S6 Channel Transformation   That gives a total of 11 patterns to highlight in Section 3.  I’d be happy to have a go at illustrating for one or two of these how we might write up Section 3 content in a way which highlights why the pattern is relevant to addressing IoT issues and which recommends how the pattern should be deployed in an IoT context – but then I’d hope we could divide out the eleven between a few of us on the TC.  Does that sound a sensible way forward?   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John  

Hi All,                 Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.   I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”   I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

 Nig Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft.  You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below. John From: Greenaway Nigel <Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com> To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft Hi All,                 Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.   I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”   I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

John   As promised, I’ve now had a go at the first couple of most IoT-relevant patterns, in the attached redraft to Section 3 of your draft Committee Note.   As you’ll see, I’m suggesting a common structure, where for each relevant pattern we look in turn at:   Why this Core Pattern is particularly relevant to the IoT Recommendations on how the Core Pattern should be implemented to maximise benefits from the IoT Perhaps we could discuss on the call next week.  If this approach seems helpful, we could divide up the relevant patterns between a few of us.  Once we’ve gone through this process, it should be clearer what if any new recommendations or potential changes in a TGF v3 we might want.   Have a great weekend,   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 16 July 2014 10:03 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft    Nig   Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft.    You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below.   John   From: Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Hi All,                 Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.   I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”   I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com       From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu". This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.   Attachment: TGF-IoT-Impact-v1 0-wd02.doc Description: TGF-IoT-Impact-v1 0-wd02.doc

Hi Chris,                 I think this is looking good. I’ve a couple of picky bits to discuss on Thursday but see this as the way to go. I’m happy to take of some of the other patterns once the TC agrees the way forward.     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Chris Parker Sent: 18 July 2014 14:43 To: John Borras; 'TGF TC List' Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   John   As promised, I’ve now had a go at the first couple of most IoT-relevant patterns, in the attached redraft to Section 3 of your draft Committee Note.   As you’ll see, I’m suggesting a common structure, where for each relevant pattern we look in turn at:   Why this Core Pattern is particularly relevant to the IoT Recommendations on how the Core Pattern should be implemented to maximise benefits from the IoT Perhaps we could discuss on the call next week.  If this approach seems helpful, we could divide up the relevant patterns between a few of us.  Once we’ve gone through this process, it should be clearer what if any new recommendations or potential changes in a TGF v3 we might want.   Have a great weekend,   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 16 July 2014 10:03 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft    Nig   Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft.    You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below.   John   From: Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Hi All,                 Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.   I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”   I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com       From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu". This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

 Chris Thanks for this, it looks like a very good pattern to follow if you'll excuse the pun!  It certainly meets two of the main goals I had in mind for the CN, ie allowing us to write some very discursive text on the subject matter, and providing good material to test out when we get to the Public Review. I'll add this to next week's agenda and hope to see a lot of hands go up when I ask for volunteers to help write the other patterns...-) John From: Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com> To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>; 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014, 14:42 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft John   As promised, I’ve now had a go at the first couple of most IoT-relevant patterns, in the attached redraft to Section 3 of your draft Committee Note.   As you’ll see, I’m suggesting a common structure, where for each relevant pattern we look in turn at:   Why this Core Pattern is particularly relevant to the IoT Recommendations on how the Core Pattern should be implemented to maximise benefits from the IoT Perhaps we could discuss on the call next week.  If this approach seems helpful, we could divide up the relevant patterns between a few of us.  Once we’ve gone through this process, it should be clearer what if any new recommendations or potential changes in a TGF v3 we might want.   Have a great weekend,   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation   From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 16 July 2014 10:03 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft    Nig   Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft.    You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below.   John   From: Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Hi All,                 Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.   I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”   I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com       From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.  

Yes, I too, support the approach, but I do have some concerns.
I don’t yet have any specific text at this stage but wanted to air them in advance of the meeting.
 
We seem to have got fixated on ‘devices’ and e-devices’ and to a lesser extent on sensors, as the things that need high level/governance level attention on.
 
The problem space is much broader than these (important as they are, since you’ve got sensors in devices and sensors in other objects that aren’t devices). 
But not all objects need nor have sensors. An object (as a simple data source)may just need to be internet addressable via IPV4/6 so that it can take some action or other.
 
The big issues so far, on IoT are interoperability, identity (and from that ownership, authentication, access control), and from that privacy (correctly called
out in the draft) and security (not mentioned) and pan jurisdiction legal vires (interop/recognition on a higher level (implied in the draft). Much like the issues that pervade anything on the internet today.
 
There are a range of protocols being applied or purpose built for IoT, and one need go no further than OASIS to see potential protocol wars looming. TGF deployers
will need to be mindful of its standards strategy and governance, and the mapping/transformation requirements that will fall out of this.
 
There are a range of approaches to identifying a ‘thing’ .. again a protocol and process issue, which will affect the ‘trust’ in the ‘thing’ .. that is has
not been compromised when other ‘things’ communicate with it. … ‘thing spoofing’…
 
Then there is the whole issue of ownership and control. Simple use case of ye olde light switch and light bulb (hate it… hate it.. but bear with me..) .  I
bought the lightswitch and the lightbulb and they are in my utility facility. But the manufacturer holds the identity establishment of these items, even if I or the sensor provider or comms provider enrolled these items to the service. Who has access control?
Under what circumstances? Who needs to know what has been accessed, what was changed? These federated control channel networks need all the same GRC as any other asset in a system.

   
The security and privacy implications are significant, and plays into the governance of risk and liability for TGF deployers.
 
There is the while issue of power consumption. Some sensors, devices, objects can only operate on very low power. From a governance perspective, you need to
think about the range of standards for power of object, how they interoperate with existing systems of a different power output etc.
 
There is the whole issue of automation...say, a sensor sending info to a website that creates a ‘heat map’ of some particular event/crisis whatever. The whole
end to end ‘orchestrated automation’ of the process needs to be protected and governed.
 
And that leads to the issue of scale. The scale of IoT is vastly different (larger) than that of people and their devices. You can’t operate and govern that
scale in the same way.  That is what the SCADA (look it up if you don’t know) approach attempts to tackle.

I know I am risking getting my early comment.. ‘ it’s not all about technology’ ..thrown back in face.
 
But the point I am making is that in order to apply the higher level strategy, policy and standards governance a la GP1 and B3 (and I think others are also
applicable) onto the IoT, you need to know what it is you need to govern.
 
Anyway, FWIW..
 
Cheers
Colin   
 


From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Saturday, 19 July 2014 2:52 a.m.
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft


 


 Chris


 


Thanks for this, it looks like a very good pattern to follow if you'll excuse the pun!  It certainly meets two of the main goals I
had in mind for the CN, ie allowing us to write some very discursive text on the subject matter, and providing good material to test out when we get to the Public Review.


 


I'll add this to next week's agenda and hope to see a lot of hands go up when I ask for volunteers to help write the other patterns...-)


 


John



 



From: Chris Parker < chris.parker@cstransform.com >
To: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >; 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014, 14:42
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft


 




John


 


As promised, I’ve now had a go at the first couple of most IoT-relevant patterns, in the attached redraft to Section 3 of your draft
Committee Note.


 


As you’ll see, I’m suggesting a common structure, where for each relevant pattern we look in turn at:


 



Why this Core Pattern is particularly relevant to the IoT
Recommendations on how the Core Pattern should be implemented to maximise benefits from the IoT

Perhaps we could discuss on the call next week.  If this approach seems helpful, we could divide up the relevant patterns between a
few of us.  Once we’ve gone through this process, it should be clearer what if any new recommendations or potential changes in a TGF v3 we might want.


 


Have a great weekend,


 



Chris Parker


Managing Partner


CS Transform Limited


www.cstransform.com


T: +44 7951 754060


F: +44 207 681 3908


 


Citizen Service Transformation



 


 





From:
tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: 16 July 2014 10:03
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft




 




 Nig




 




Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft. 





 




You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps
you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below.




 




John




 






From: Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com >
To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft




 






Hi All,




                Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.




 




I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it
would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to
serve citizens and businesses.”




 




I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider
[B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery
(where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).




 





 




Regards




 




Nig




 




Nig Greenaway




Fujitsu Fellow




 




FUJITSU





Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN




Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637





Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147




E-mail:
nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com
Web:
http://uk.fujitsu.com





 





 




 







From:
tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ]
On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft






 






Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the
Committee Note for your scrutiny. 






 






I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject
over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please. 






 






Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear
how the patterns should be applied.






 






Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.






 






Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.






 






As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're
not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.






 






 






John







 







From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >
To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org >

Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things






 








Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think
the answer to our problem is as follows.






 






The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT
on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance
of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need. 






 






The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text
is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.   






 






If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline
for discussion on our next TC call. 






 






So AYEs/NOs asap please.






 






John  

















Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.

Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.

PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.

Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.




 











 

Colin Thanks very much for this.  I for one, and I guess some others on the TC, are getting out of our comfort zone on this topic, so we are going to reply very heavily on a few of you who really understand the issues.  My immediate thought on the issues you have raised is are we getting too complicated on this?  Bearing in mind that we are trying to give advice to non-techie policy makers, senior managers etc,   we do need to keep our messages at a fairly high-level certainly at this stage when the IoT is a developing thing.  But at the same time make it a meaningful and useful document rather than just repeat what is already available on the 'Net, so where's our added-value? Clearly we can discuss on tomorrow's call but the immediate questions for me are: - do we need to re-define e-devices or come up with some other term to cover the things we're talking about? - how much of what you have articulate is in the future, and hence for a future version, and how much is immediate and for this version? - how are the few of you that understand this going to share the burden of drafting the required text? John From: Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz> To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014, 2:38 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft Yes, I too, support the approach, but I do have some concerns. I don’t yet have any specific text at this stage but wanted to air them in advance of the meeting.   We seem to have got fixated on ‘devices’ and e-devices’ and to a lesser extent on sensors, as the things that need high level/governance level attention on.   The problem space is much broader than these (important as they are, since you’ve got sensors in devices and sensors in other objects that aren’t devices).  But not all objects need nor have sensors. An object (as a simple data source)may just need to be internet addressable via IPV4/6 so that it can take some action or other.   The big issues so far, on IoT are interoperability, identity (and from that ownership, authentication, access control), and from that privacy (correctly called out in the draft) and security (not mentioned) and pan jurisdiction legal vires (interop/recognition on a higher level (implied in the draft). Much like the issues that pervade anything on the internet today.   There are a range of protocols being applied or purpose built for IoT, and one need go no further than OASIS to see potential protocol wars looming. TGF deployers will need to be mindful of its standards strategy and governance, and the mapping/transformation requirements that will fall out of this.   There are a range of approaches to identifying a ‘thing’ .. again a protocol and process issue, which will affect the ‘trust’ in the ‘thing’ .. that is has not been compromised when other ‘things’ communicate with it. … ‘thing spoofing’…   Then there is the whole issue of ownership and control. Simple use case of ye olde light switch and light bulb (hate it… hate it.. but bear with me..) .  I bought the lightswitch and the lightbulb and they are in my utility facility. But the manufacturer holds the identity establishment of these items, even if I or the sensor provider or comms provider enrolled these items to the service. Who has access control? Under what circumstances? Who needs to know what has been accessed, what was changed? These federated control channel networks need all the same GRC as any other asset in a system.     The security and privacy implications are significant, and plays into the governance of risk and liability for TGF deployers.   There is the while issue of power consumption. Some sensors, devices, objects can only operate on very low power. From a governance perspective, you need to think about the range of standards for power of object, how they interoperate with existing systems of a different power output etc.   There is the whole issue of automation...say, a sensor sending info to a website that creates a ‘heat map’ of some particular event/crisis whatever. The whole end to end ‘orchestrated automation’ of the process needs to be protected and governed.   And that leads to the issue of scale. The scale of IoT is vastly different (larger) than that of people and their devices. You can’t operate and govern that scale in the same way.  That is what the SCADA (look it up if you don’t know) approach attempts to tackle. I know I am risking getting my early comment.. ‘ it’s not all about technology’ ..thrown back in face.   But the point I am making is that in order to apply the higher level strategy, policy and standards governance a la GP1 and B3 (and I think others are also applicable) onto the IoT, you need to know what it is you need to govern.   Anyway, FWIW..   Cheers Colin      From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: Saturday, 19 July 2014 2:52 a.m. To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft    Chris   Thanks for this, it looks like a very good pattern to follow if you'll excuse the pun!  It certainly meets two of the main goals I had in mind for the CN, ie allowing us to write some very discursive text on the subject matter, and providing good material to test out when we get to the Public Review.   I'll add this to next week's agenda and hope to see a lot of hands go up when I ask for volunteers to help write the other patterns...-)   John   From: Chris Parker < chris.parker@cstransform.com > To: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk >; 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014, 14:42 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   John   As promised, I’ve now had a go at the first couple of most IoT-relevant patterns, in the attached redraft to Section 3 of your draft Committee Note.   As you’ll see, I’m suggesting a common structure, where for each relevant pattern we look in turn at:   Why this Core Pattern is particularly relevant to the IoT Recommendations on how the Core Pattern should be implemented to maximise benefits from the IoT Perhaps we could discuss on the call next week.  If this approach seems helpful, we could divide up the relevant patterns between a few of us.  Once we’ve gone through this process, it should be clearer what if any new recommendations or potential changes in a TGF v3 we might want.   Have a great weekend,   Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908   Citizen Service Transformation     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 16 July 2014 10:03 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft    Nig   Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft.    You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below.   John   From: Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38 Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Hi All,                 Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.   I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”   I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com       From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50 To: 'TGF TC List' Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft   Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny.    I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please.    Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.   Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.   Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.   As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.     John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: 'TGF TC List' < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35 Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.   The title of the CN should be TGF: Impact of IoT and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need.    The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.      If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call.    So AYEs/NOs asap please.   John   Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.    

Hello folks Here is a guide on IoT, mainly for startups: http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/ I am also currently working on a white paper 'Enterprise IoT', that will include a section on IoT for the public sector. Here's the start of it: http://digital-government.info/Internet-of-Things Cheers, Neil. Cheers, Neil. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > wrote: John,  the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF Jenny On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.  Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated. Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things Colleagues          Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect. Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0  I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.  We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please. John --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1

Hi Neil,                 I can’t download the IOT Cloud Rainmaker document – could you send it to the group please?     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Neil McEvoy Sent: 04 July 2014 12:33 To: Jenny Huang Cc: John Borras; TGF TC List Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Hello folks   Here is a guide on IoT, mainly for startups:   http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/   I am also currently working on a white paper 'Enterprise IoT', that will include a section on IoT for the public sector. Here's the start of it:   http://digital-government.info/Internet-of-Things   Cheers, Neil.   Cheers, Neil.     On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > wrote: John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John     --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php     -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1 Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

Hi Nigel I think I moved things around a bit after first sending the message, try this again please it should work, if it doesn't I need to fix it: http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/ Regards, Neil. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com > wrote: Hi Neil,                 I can’t download the IOT Cloud Rainmaker document – could you send it to the group please?     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Neil McEvoy Sent: 04 July 2014 12:33 To: Jenny Huang Cc: John Borras; TGF TC List Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Hello folks   Here is a guide on IoT, mainly for startups:   http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/   I am also currently working on a white paper 'Enterprise IoT', that will include a section on IoT for the public sector. Here's the start of it:   http://digital-government.info/Internet-of-Things   Cheers, Neil.   Cheers, Neil.     On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > wrote: John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John     --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php     -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1 Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu". This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU. -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1

Thanks Neil, I’ve got it     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: Neil McEvoy [mailto:neil.mcevoy@ifossfoundation.org] Sent: 15 July 2014 10:45 To: Greenaway Nigel Cc: TGF TC List Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things     Hi Nigel   I think I moved things around a bit after first sending the message, try this again please it should work, if it doesn't I need to fix it:   http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/   Regards, Neil.   On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Greenaway Nigel < Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com > wrote: Hi Neil,                 I can’t download the IOT Cloud Rainmaker document – could you send it to the group please?     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Neil McEvoy Sent: 04 July 2014 12:33 To: Jenny Huang Cc: John Borras; TGF TC List Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Hello folks   Here is a guide on IoT, mainly for startups:   http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/   I am also currently working on a white paper 'Enterprise IoT', that will include a section on IoT for the public sector. Here's the start of it:   http://digital-government.info/Internet-of-Things   Cheers, Neil.   Cheers, Neil.     On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > wrote: John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John     --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php     -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1 Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu". This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.   -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1 Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.

Hi Neil,                 I can’t download the IOT Cloud Rainmaker document and can’t get access to your enterprise white paper – could you send them to the group please?     Regards   Nig   Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow   FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com     From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Neil McEvoy Sent: 04 July 2014 12:33 To: Jenny Huang Cc: John Borras; TGF TC List Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things   Hello folks   Here is a guide on IoT, mainly for startups:   http://canadacloud.net/roadmap/iot/   I am also currently working on a white paper 'Enterprise IoT', that will include a section on IoT for the public sector. Here's the start of it:   http://digital-government.info/Internet-of-Things   Cheers, Neil.   Cheers, Neil.     On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jenny Huang < jenny@ifossfoundation.org > wrote: John,    the structure looks good for me.  How about a title  along the line of     "IoT implication in Public Sector Services"  - a perspective from TGF   Jenny   On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:00 AM, John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: From responses received so far there appears to be support for the idea of a new Committee Note.  So to help move this along a little further I've sketched out a proposed structure for the new CN, see attached.  I don't see this  being a lengthy document, maybe 6-10 pages max.    Perhaps the most difficult part is deciding on a  title for the CN.  Any suggestions on that would be appreciated.   Before I commission the new CN template from TC Admin can I have your views on this structure and any suggestions on other aspects that will need to be included.   John   From: John Borras < johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk > To: TGF TC List < tgf@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 10:44 Subject: TGF and the Internet of Things   Colleagues         Peter, Chris and I had a chat yesterday as a follow-up to our discussions on the last TC call about the possible new Platform Management pattern.  We discussed the suggestion on the TC call that we should be talking more about ecosystem management/governance rather than platform management and referred back to some of Peter's initial TGF Primer thinking on this aspect.   Our conclusions were broadly as follows: - the IoT does not add anything fundamentally new to the TGF and therefore a new pattern is not required; - the issues about IoT that need to be addressed in TGF programs relate to the governance aspects of utilising the new range of devices and not the technical issues; - most if not all of the required governance aspects are already in the TGF but perhaps are not self-evident because they are spread across a number of patterns; - we should produce a new Committee Note that discusses the relevant aspects of IoT, gives an overview of how to use the TGF in this context and points to the current TGF patterns that support the governance needs; - the advantages of producing a new Committee Note are that:      -  it can be done very much quicker than producing a TGF v3.0      -  it allows us to write a much more discursive piece of text and diagrams, with recommendations rather than being constrained by having to write formal conformance clauses      - it will not require a lot of new material as much of what needs to be said is already available in the TGF and can be supplemented by extracts from the draft Platform Management pattern and some of the diagrams that have already been put forward      - we can produce a draft and get it out for Public Review quickly which will test the water and perhaps highlight updates for a future TGF v3.0    I'm sure Peter and Chris will correct and add to any of the above points which attempt to summarise an hour's call.    We obviously will need to discuss this on the next TC call before we attempt to put pen to paper on a new Committee Note, but it would be good to get some initial reaction to our recommendation please.   John     --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php     -- Neil McEvoy VP Business Development iFOSSF.org Skype:neil.mcevoy1 Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu . This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW. PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE. Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.