Today's agenda

wonsuk: shows today's agenda

<scribe> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-autowebplatform/2016May/0000.html

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-autowebplatform/2016May/0000.html agenda

wonsuk: recap f2f, scope/roadmap for LBS/Media tuner, SOTA

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-autowebplatform/2016May/0005.html updated agenda

wonsuk: manufacturer engmement, EV support
... this is my first charing the BG, please let me know if anything missing
... let's start with recap f2f

Recap from the f2f in Paris

wonsuk: we have demos, conceptual discussion

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/26-auto-minutes security day

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-auto-minutes day 1

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-auto-minutes day 2

wonsuk: shows the minutes from day2
... navigation web api

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-auto-minutes#item02 Navigation Web API

wonsuk: Philippe Colliot gave presentation on GENIVI's Navigation Web API work
... changing from the QML-based HMI to HTML5-based one
... we need to define data set
... we'll first try websocket-based api for this (=LBS)
... and then think about WebIDL-based API
... people agreed that websocket-based approach would be more flexible
... and easy to implement
... any additional comments?
... think that was the most important decision

kaz: the f2f discussion also included the conclusion on API styling that we'll continue the work on the Vehicle API spec and the Vehicle Data spec
... and new work proposal on GENIVI VSS, LBS, SOTA, etc.

wonsuk: some of them are rather WG topics

kaz: right
... so we should be clear about what to be done by the BG
... and what for the WG

wonsuk: new topics, e.g., SOTA, should be done by the BG

paul: vehicle api/data spec and websocket version of them should be done by the WG
... others should be done by the BG
... security/privacy will be handled by both the groups

wonsuk: goes to SOTA topic

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-auto-minutes#item08 SOTA RVI API

wonsuk: we need to investigate what to do
... big benefit for the ecosystem
... REST-based API for SOTA server is required for the SOTA manager apps
... not for the app developers outside
... including public developers
... they can also make apps using the APIs
... but in case of SOTA, not sure if the APIs are enough for them

paul: provisioning and administering
... administration of SOTA

wonsuk: what I have in mind is introduction of SOTA
... want to have more discussion about this within the group
... if we get consensus that SOTA is important for the automotiv ecosystem, then we should create the TF
... but we need to investigate whether we need to create APIs for this purpose
... what do you think?

kaz: and you think we should do that investigation by the whole BG before creating a TF?

wonsuk: right
... we need to have more meeting with GENIVI
... to see how we should handle this topic within the BG

kaz: make sense

paul: make sense to me too

wonsuk: that's my recap from the Paris meeting
... anything else to be added?

<QingAn> * maybe because of the poor signal, I cannot hear any voice from my side

LBS

wonsuk: roadmap for LBS?
... Qing An?

<QingAn> * I suggest to skip to next one, while I reconfigure the setting

wonsuk: we need to put the information on the BG wiki
... and ask the BG participants for reviews

<QingAn> * yes, but I no voice

wonsuk: to elaborate the description

SOTA

wonsuk: next is SOTA
... introduction during the last f2f meeting in Paris

<wonsuk> http://pdxostc.github.io/rvi_sota_server/ GENIVI's SOTA project

-> http://pdxostc.github.io/rvi_sota_server/dev/api.html Web server API

<ted> [there is some confusion on how to handle conflicting days when both genivi coordination calls and w3c business group calls]

wonsuk: want to have some more discussion about SOTA Web API
... how it would be beneficial to the Automotive ecosystem?

arthor: we're trying more open standard API
... want to standardize APIs on the server side
... tools and services to be integrated with existing commercial OTI services
... creating standard interface would allow people for that
... not really specific to automotive industry
... developing this API would be applicable to other sectors too

wonsuk: could you please give some more explanation on embedded uses?

arthor: vehicles are basically embedded devices
... development is often slow and difficult to manage
... having more standards would let people develop systems more easily

wonsuk: integrated with the existing SOTA servers?
... some third party developers might have solutions

author: exposing entire server interface for embedded software architecture

paul: really interesting in general
... not fully understood at the moment
... would suggest we put an action for investigation
... REST-based interface for administration, etc.

arthor: we did open-based protocol
... what we have so far is Web API
... think it would be relevant to W3C
... we're talking about the interface for the SOTA server
... delivery for automotive systems

paul: REST interface for the server side is included in the scope. right?
... other pieces are not clear enough
... have to look into that
... what kind of protocols?
... how does that work?

arthor: we need features to device wake-up, etc.
... we have reference implementations

paul: the question is that I need to look into the Web server API spec
... would have action item

rudi: agree with you
... would see why standardization on the server side would be beneficial
... simple integration task
... we can look into the spec

robert: the reason I'm involved is because software talks with different kind of cars
... value to be added to my software

arthor: right
... having standard interface would be beneficial
... not sure if the idea of RESTful interface for managing the server side would be useful to W3C

robert: tx for your clarification

kaz: wondering if the data property for SOTA Web API is related to the data definition of VSS

arthor: no relationship with VSS

paul: communication with web application
... also interface between cloud and cars
... still I would like to see the detail of the SOTA Web server API

<scribe> ACTION: paul to look into the detail of the SOTA Web server API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/10-auto-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Look into the detail of the sota web server api [on Paul Boyes - due 2016-05-17].

wonsuk: ok
... we need more discussion
... Paul will bring some more concrete opinions for the upcoming calls

Manufacturer engagement

wonsuk: would like to ask Robert for opinions

robert: can you clarify what you mean by "manufacture engagement"?
... it would be useless unless the manufacturers are involved
... do we have data manifest for manufactures?

paul: we had somebody from Honda at the Paris meeting
... would be great to have even more manufacturers
... OEMs, Tier1s

robert: ok

paul: have talked with many of them so far

robert: what is the difference with JLR?

rudi: JLR is the pioneer in this area
... reference implementation on Linux
... we have to leverage open standards, open platform, etc.
... would like to see vehicle manufacturers will be on board

robert: sounds great

rudi: doing everything to be publicized
... collaboration between GENIVI and W3C

paul: reference implementation would be useful
... have to see that
... the question is when other OEMs will join

rudi: would like to see some sort of Hackathon when we hold the next f2f in Portland in June/July

robert: sounds good
... you can probably talk with other manufacturers and invite them
... from my point of view, "manufacture engagement" has been covered
... what about manufacturers of EVs?
... anybody have any feedback?
... would like to see what happened

paul: regarding EV from the vehicle information viewpoint, people interested will drive it
... and give you feedback
... would like to suggest you also participate

robert: happy to do that

paul: have to drop

kaz: maybe we might want to have a TF for communications with automotive industry

robert: sounds like a good idea

kaz: would be great

robert: ok
... will do

<QingAn> * can you hear me?

<ted> [it was on vss and electric vehicles. basically robert you and volker should submit their ideas and the process is clear]

kevin: part of the reasons why manufactures are not really involved is it would be a big decision for them to participate in W3C

kaz: Ted suggests Robert and Volker submit their ideas

wonsuk: good idea
... they can put their ideas on the wiki and we can get reviews

kaz: initial discussion on emails?

wonsuk: that's fine

kaz: Robert, you can send a brief summary message to the ML (public-autowebplatform@w3.org)
... and include links to the GitHub repo

wonsuk: ok

telco schedule

wonsuk: we'll have telcos monthly
... the next call will be June the 7th
... same time as this call:
... * 8am US Pacific
... * 11am US Eastern
... * 5pm Europe
... * 11pm China
... * Midnight Korea/Japan

wonsuk: would adjourn the meeting then
... please send your contributions to the ML
... and add them to the wiki

[ adjourned ]