See also: IRC log
paul: don't have concrete agenda for today but can talk about the updates
... spec issues, reviews, etc.
kaz: we can briefly check the status and confirm our policy
paul: also Kevin and Adam for
spec
... basically, VW has just joined W3C
... the question in Burlingame was that we were working on our
Charter
... we have discussed with VW guys
... the Automotive BG is working on new proposals
... creates reports and donates ideas to the WG
... so the approach is working with the BG first
... happy to have another OEM
... that's my summary
ted: VIWI includes not only
vehicle information but media information, etc.
... VW was interested in volunteering for the vehicle signal
side as well
patrick: from our side, this is a
good path to take
... don't want to influence the spec itself at the moment
... VIWI is something the BG could be interested
... we need feedback
... just vehicle information is not enough
... feedback from the BG and the community would make perfect
sense
kevin: welcome VW's
participation
... tx for joining us
... the RESTful interface is interesting
... working within the BG first would be a good approach
patrick: tx!
peter: really great to have VW on board!
paul: great!
paul: btw, I saw comments for the proposed new Charter
... what's the update?
ted: responded to the
commenter
... initial misunderstanding was using cloud services from the
vehicle using the interface
peter: Rudi made some
statement
... found it's kind of defensive
... need to explain the misunderstood point
... didn't see any more responses other than Rudi and
Wonsuk
ted: we should be fine
paul: only one objection?
ted: yes
paul: conversation with them?
ted: know the commenter
... will work for the objection
... we should incorporate feedback
... very busy this week but will talk with them
ted: another point is VW's
submitting their VIWI proposal to W3C as a Member
submission
... so that we can get feedback from the community
patrick: how to do that?
ted: there is a specific
procedure
... write a template for the submission
... can help you
patrick: we can do that but is
that the most common way?
... would be easy to use the common path
... if it's not only putting on GitHub, we may need some kind of extra agreement within the company
ted: there are two paths: 1. BG report (discussion within the BG) and 2. Member submission
patrick: ok
paul: anything else on this topic?
(none)
paul: the next topic is issues
with the spec
... JSON schema and WebIDL?
adam: proposal on equivalent
way
... machine readable
... maybe we should go with the approach with WebIDL and think
about how to apply JSON Schema
... JSON Schema is quite good way
kevin: pros and cons with the both
<Paul> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/99
patrick: there is always object
definition
... JSON Schema on our side is the foundation
... could generate human readable WebIDL based on that
... we're generating that ourselves
adam: that's encouraging
paul: makes sense to me
kevin: good idea to change something obvious and see it
paul: what about the spec
actions?
... any comments?
... simple implementations?
... testing?
... that's the way to go
paul: have not got many comments for the FPWD yet
kevin: what about the client spec?
paul: Powell is busy for a while
<Paul> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/91
adam: can take an action item for issue 91
paul: there are quite a few
action items
... should go through during the next call on Dec. 6
... very late for Adam and Patrick, though
... and we have another action for the client spec and need to
ping Powell
... high-level API for Web developers
kaz: regarding testing, Hira-san mentioned he and Urata-san were interested in testing
shinjiro: right
... I'm creating a server prototype for initial testing
... can make contribution for our testing
paul: great
shinjiro: one question is that the
W3C testing environment is for usual Web browsers
... on the other hand, the vehicle spec is not for usual
browsers
paul: we have a framework for
testing servers
... maybe I can provide that
... let me ask Jeff about that
... might help since there is same pattern
shinjiro: great
... also there is test mechanism for Node.js
... maybe that would be useful
paul: Patrick, do you have any mechanism?
patrick: regular Web tools
... we use REST
paul: right
... will talk with our QA team
... may have example tests
patrick: postman automated
tests
... continuous integration
... UI tool
... we're doing HTTP and WebSocket is extension with our
implementation, though
paul: the basic framework is
similar
... would be helpful
peter: what would we test?
... implementation or spec?
paul: basically testing the sections of the spec
peter: ok. we're not testing the implementations
paul: implementations meet the spec
peter: an issue on testing I created on GitHub
paul: issue 75
<Paul> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/75
peter: Urata-san, can you describe what are you planning to do?
shinjiro: about the testing?
peter: yes
shinjiro: creating a prototype
implementation first
... and then create test suite
... that's what I want to try
paul: one of the
deliverables
... we need two implementations
... the test need to be doable
kaz: we need to be able to point to two implementations of the spec to see implementability and interoperability of the spec, though the implementations themselves are not W3C deliverables
kevin: one thing to see is VSS implementation could be a reference one
paul: test against mach server
and test against data generator
... what are you doing with VSS, Urata-san?
... how do you implement it?
shinjiro: I'm creating a VSS server
using Node.js
... need some data source as an alternative of the actual
vehicle
... can test the implementation using the mocked-up data
... so I have a VSS server and an emulation server
paul: great
... sounds like ACCESS is doing an implementation
... Melco as well, Peter
... VSS as a data model
... people can contribute to implementations
... I would do my best as well
... next meeting on Dec. 6
kaz: regarding testing, I'll ask TV guys about their knowledge about testing environment as well
paul: ok
[ adjourned ]