Testing

urata: would like to start with the testing topic
... mentioned some concern within my message
... attached an attachment file
... to describe how to handle external resources
... may be going to break the W3C testing policy

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Dec/0035.html Urata-san's message (member-only)

urata: the concern is clear
... if it's OK to refer to external resources, there would be no problem

kaz: personally think there should not be problem if all the resources are accessible online
... can check with PLH

peter: the definition of "testing" is testing specs
... not the server resources themselves

paul: right
... don't see how to test our tests without external resources like VSS

kaz: will talk with PLH and clarify the requirements for testing

paul: ok
... anyway Urata-san has started great work on testing

<urata_access> Regarding the test assertion document, it is being created at Hirabayashi-san's site.

Issues

rudi: shows issues on his screen

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/107 Issue-107

rudi: discrepancy between the document title and the shortname
... would propose we rename the title to "Vehicle Information Service Specification"

kevin: change the title from "Vehicle Signal Server Spec"?

kaz: either is ok
... it depends on our preference as the whole WG

<ted> [vehicle-information-service shortname is what came out of mail thread. i believe we can change the shortname and title if desired]

kaz: so the resolution from this call is changing the document title to "Vehicle Information Service Specification"
... and use that title for the 2nd WD
... right?

rudi: yes

urata: so you're suggesting we change the document title?
... is it OK to change the title of the document?
... we should ask all the group participants about their opinions as well
... from my viewpoint, I've been already using the name of "Vehicle Signal Server Specification" in many places within my codes
... on the other hand, the acronym for "Vehicle Signal Server Spec" is kind of confusing since it's VSSS and similar to VSS

peter: would agree with Rudi's argument

urata: can change the name myself
... but we should ask others' opinions as well

rudi: yes
... this issue-107 itself is one of the feedbacks for the FPWD

urata: ok

kaz: in that case, the client-side spec's name would be also "Vehicle Information Client Specification". right?

paul: "Vehicle Information API" would still make sense

kaz: ok
... we don't have to decide the client spec's name now
... but at some point, we need to think about that

rudi: ok

paul: that (=using "Vehicle Information API") is my opinion

kaz: ok
... we should set some deadline to get feedback for this proposal

rudi: would like to publish the 2nd draft with the updated name next year

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/99 Issue-99

rudi: JSON Schema instead of WebIDL

kevin: agreeable

patrick: have good experience on JSON Schema
... all the media is defined using JSON Schema within VW
... could express the data model easier using JSON Schema than WebIDL

kevin: offer to add JSON Schema notation as well as WebIDL in January

<rstreif> Per Working Group Meeting: consent to accompany the specification with the JSON schema metadata for the API specification; @drkevg and @acrofts84 to add JSON schema and WebIDL definitions in 1/2017

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/91 Issue-91

rudi: whole issue list for the server spec
... generated by Adam
... would be great if Adam and Kevin could go through the list

<rstreif> #91: Per Working Group Meeting: @drkevg, @acrofts84, and the editors and chairs review the list and clear the remaining items.

kaz: btw, we should change the text for the issue label "Vehicle Signal Server Spec" to "Vehicle Information Service Spec", shouldn't we?

rudi: right

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/87 Issue-87

rudi: Deliverable definition

<rstreif> #87: Per Working Group Meeting: addressed at this point with the new charter. Close.

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/85 Issue-85

#85: Per Working Group Meeting: ticket stands; Vehicle Information API Specification yet to be created;

Meeting during CES

paul: what would people discuss at CES?
... WG? BG?

rudi: let's meet in Thursday afternoon
... 3-5pm
... myself can't attend CES but Magnus will be there

[ adjourned ]