15:48:39 RRSAgent has joined #auto 15:48:39 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/15-auto-irc 15:56:58 QingAn has joined #auto 15:58:10 QingAn has joined #auto 16:00:06 j-hashimoto has joined #auto 16:00:28 scribenick: ted 16:00:45 urata_access has joined #auto 16:01:41 Meeting: Automotive WG 16:01:42 Present+ Adam_Crofts, Kaz_Ashimura, Peter_Winzell, Paul_Boyes, Junichi_Hashimoto, Yingying_Chen, Greg_Brannon, Ted_Guild 16:01:48 Chair: Paul Boyes 16:01:50 Scribe: Ted 16:02:35 Present+ Shinjiro_Urata 16:02:47 Present+ Dave_Jensen 16:03:11 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-automotive/2015Sep/0011.html 16:03:36 peterW has joined #auto 16:03:39 agenda+ Privacy and Security Update 16:03:39 agenda+ Spec Status 16:03:40 agenda+ Publishing Working Draft 16:03:42 agenda+ Use Cases 16:03:46 agenda+ October F2F 16:03:49 agenda? 16:03:58 zakim, clear agenda 16:03:58 agenda cleared 16:04:01 agenda+ Privacy and Security Update 16:04:01 agenda+ Spec Status 16:04:01 agenda+ Publishing Working Draft 16:04:04 agenda+ Use Cases 16:04:05 KevG has joined #auto 16:04:07 agenda+ October F2F 16:05:12 agenda+ Genivi AMM 16:05:40 Present+ Kevin_Gavigan 16:06:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:06:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/15-auto-minutes.html kaz 16:06:06 zakim take up agendum 2 16:06:11 zakim, take up agendum 2 16:06:11 agendum 2. "Spec Status" taken up [from ted] 16:06:18 PaulBoyes has joined #auto 16:06:38 Adam: we have gone into the various issues including the language configuration one 16:07:04 ... to be able to distinguish preferences 16:07:21 ... the remaining open issues include refactoring api 16:07:32 i|we have|-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues Github issues| 16:07:39 Paul: I believe we came close to a consensus on that one 16:07:49 Present+ Qing_An 16:08:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:08:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/15-auto-minutes.html kaz 16:09:02 Qing_An: we discussed the language issue and reached consensus on refactoring 16:09:22 Dave: we were ok with where they stood but sought input from other working groups 16:09:44 q+ 16:09:53 Paul: Philippe Le Hegaret responded in-line on that issue 16:10:24 -> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/37 Refactor API Signatures 16:10:42 Kaz: we can ask various groups in person at TPAC 16:12:11 Ted: I recall you (Paul) asked the TAG for their input and that Daniel Applequist acknowledged it but forget the details 16:12:45 ... they are meeting this week and I will inquire if this is on their agenda and if we should expect a response 16:14:13 Paul: Daniel asked for a summary of what we were looking for and although we intended to do so at the face to face we did not 16:14:51 ... Philippe had four points in his response 16:15:14 ... (to editors on the call) can you help identify what we want further focus 16:16:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/37 Refactor API signatures issue (#37) 16:17:01 Dave: it was a pretty long discussion thread with some back and forth but it is fairly clear 16:17:16 s/had four/had a few/ 16:17:49 Paul: I'll get back to the TAG 16:18:43 Kaz: we discussed using some GeoLocation API in LBS and would be good to get feedback on that as well during TPAC 16:19:01 ... we can create breakout sessions on Wednesday 16:20:19 Kevin: part of the problem is we have not settled on a consistent sense of zone yet 16:21:00 ... a 3x3x3 cube makes the most sense 16:22:04 ... zone left would represent 9 cubes in that plane 16:22:56 ... it would cover uses like camera on right front bumper (bottom - 1 cube) 16:25:16 Ted: I agree on 3x3x3 as the most logical. Some OEM don't deal with top/bottom (zenith/nadir) for specific items and that is fine, API would give null values if queried for them 16:25:29 Greg: @@ 16:26:17 s/@@/blind spot monitoring needs to follow the object being tracked/ 16:26:34 ... as such it needs to be consistent 16:27:00 Kevin: you may not care about vertical dimension in that scenario 16:27:28 ... there are times you would want to just say front or back (and skip left/right) 16:28:08 Ted: in such a case asking for front right or front left should give the same value 16:29:09 Shinjiro: you may also have a camera facing outward and another inward within the same zone 16:29:27 ... 3x3x3 is a simple and good concept but there can be exceptional cases that will need more 16:30:21 ... we can come up with specifying name for direction the camera/sensor is collecting data from 16:30:54 Kevin: an extra attribute could help for orientation 16:31:29 ... such as external or internal (facing) 16:32:00 Shinjiro: if we decide to put there more details, there will be also cases where it is not available 16:32:27 AdamC has joined #auto 16:32:44 ... the 3x3x3 zone system is good but do need flexibility for additional particulars 16:33:12 ... such exceptions may need to come up with their own identifiers for the additional parameters 16:33:43 ... i would provide a specific strings to describe that camera 16:34:12 Paul: in summary 3x3x3 is basically alright but we need to provide a mechanism for exceptions 16:35:25 ... how to cover that will be the challenge. we need clearer use cases. at some point we need to define our world as finite and cover what is realistic 16:36:02 ... it is not worth the effort to cover everything possible if it isn't useful 16:36:16 Greg: it sounds like we should move forward with 3x3x3 16:36:28 Paul: agree until we encounter the more complex 16:39:04 Ted: @@@1 on finite but flexible @@2 consult DAP 16:39:51 agenda? 16:40:30 kaz: we have a basic requirement/restriction of concentrating on usual passenger cars (not buses or limos) 16:40:45 Paul: right 16:41:40 zakim, take up agendum 3 16:41:40 agendum 3. "Publishing Working Draft" taken up [from ted] 16:42:02 ted: the published draft is getting out of date 16:42:15 ... we can publish an updated draft automatically 16:42:32 ... the master branch document on Github can be published 16:42:40 s/published/published automatically/ 16:42:52 Adam: how would this work? 16:43:03 i/the published/scribenick: kaz/ 16:43:11 i/how would/scribenick: ted/ 16:43:26 Ted: we can deem the master branch to be the one to publish automatically. Kevin was in favor, want to hear from other editors before we adopt 16:43:33 Adam: I am in favor of it 16:43:44 zakim, take up agendum 4 16:43:44 agendum 4. "Use Cases" taken up [from ted] 16:44:13 Greg: in a different venue/group I've been working on use cases as well 16:44:34 ... it is nearly impossible to write an exhaustive set of use cases for something like security 16:44:55 ... people will consider such a set complete when it is not 16:45:09 ... somewhere we would need to include a disclaimer, 16:45:21 Paul: yes that it is just informative, that makes sense 16:45:30 Kevin: I agree 16:46:13 Hashimoto: I want to work on security requirements at TPAC based on the use cases collected 16:46:48 ... I have shared six privacy items from forty or so use cases. We should do the same for security 16:47:11 ... yes the use cases are not exhaustive and informative but can contribute to requirements 16:47:39 @@@google doc of use cases 16:47:40 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14ij-2I-H4HbilVQ_muCmUayVqmVfdbkoke690MA0kdo/edit#gid=0 16:47:48 s/@@@google doc of use cases// 16:48:25 Paul: that makes sense to me and segues to the next items - privacy and security update and f2f planning... 16:48:48 Hashimoto: we have produced privacy requirements 16:49:19 ... I want to get opinions on privacy and security requirements from others in the group 16:49:32 ... we should create a draft at or before TPAC 16:49:55 ... also it would be good to be able to get input at Genivi 16:51:08 Paul: the Genivi AMM would be a good place to get feedback at with the various OEM and Tier 1s 16:51:20 ... who plans on being at Genivi? I haven't seen many registrations yet 16:51:55 -> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/61259/20151023_BG_F2F_SEOUL/ BG registration for Genivi 16:52:56 Hashimoto: for Genivi AMM we should give introduction/overview on W3C 16:53:34 Paul: there is an opportunity to give a high level introduction to Genivi members, but we also will be conducting BG meeting on LBS, security etc 16:53:50 ... the security group in Genivi is having similar discussions to ours 16:55:49 ... there is Fabian from PSA and Jeremiah from Pelogicore (sp?) plus people from Visteon and Bosch. we should see about liaising with them 16:56:17 ... we should try to get some of them to join us for the BG meeting 16:56:51 Its Pelagicore 16:56:52 ... for the W3C intro it would be similar to one Adam A., Ted and I did 16:57:15 s/Pelogicore/Pelagicore/ 16:57:21 q+ 16:57:41 q+ 16:57:45 Paul: who on this call will be attending Genivi? 16:58:10 Adam: Kevin and I will not be at Seoul but will be at Sapporo 16:58:32 Qing_An: unfortunately no 16:58:46 junichi and hirabayashi-san will be attenging. 16:59:26 -> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2015/ TPAC registration 16:59:30 [ will attend both Genivi and TPAC :) ] 16:59:48 Looking to go to Sapporo 16:59:57 q- 16:59:57 not korea 17:00:00 q- 17:00:16 [ted will be at both] 17:01:02 @@w: I wonder how many OEM will attend the BG meeting 17:01:19 i|will attend|-> http://genivi.org/amm-2015-october Genivi registration| 17:01:30 s/@@w:/Hashimoto:/ 17:01:36 Paul: often the same cast of characters (PSA, JLR, we have had BMW) 17:02:00 ... Hyundai sometimes comes to Genivi but has not been at a BG meeting in awhile, similar with VW 17:02:12 i|will attend|-> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/61259/20151023_BG_F2F_SEOUL/ BG registration| 17:02:29 ... as Ted said it would be good for people from this group to attend Genivi AMM tracks as well for liaising 17:03:16 q+ 17:04:17 Ted: we can ask eg Philippe Robin to communicate an invitation to join the BG meeting as observers to Genivi AMM participants in addition to doing so in our intro about W3C 17:04:34 Paul: I'll reach out to Philippe about trying to get more engagement 17:04:52 Kaz: Do we need to register for Genivi meeting itself? 17:05:11 -> https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ereg/newreg.php?eventid=134067&& Genivi AMM registration 17:05:44 Paul: they have Open Automotive which is open to the Public, the other sessions are closed to Members 17:07:07 http://genivi.org/amm-2015-october 17:07:35 agenda? 17:07:43 zakim, close agendum 2 17:07:43 agendum 2, Spec Status, closed 17:07:44 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:07:44 1. Privacy and Security Update [from ted] 17:07:45 zakim, close agendum 4 17:07:46 agendum 4, Use Cases, closed 17:07:46 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:07:46 1. Privacy and Security Update [from ted] 17:08:00 zakim, clear agendum 17:08:00 I don't understand 'clear agendum', ted 17:08:04 zakim, clear agenda 17:08:04 agenda cleared 17:08:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/15-auto-minutes.html ted