See also: IRC log
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
-> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-tvapi-minutes.html TV Control minutes
ryan: working on media tuner
topic
... discussion with the TV Control guys
... really productive
... based on a common ground
... brought use cases from auto
... the way the tuner spec is written is hardware-centric
... not only a tuner but collection of tuner and player would
be needed
... "tuner" is confusing from technical viewpoint
... I'm submitting some high-level architecture
... getting out of the concept of "tuner" and use another
concept of "player"
... playing/decoding media
... a player may be responsible some media stream
... and another player might be responsible to another
resource
... this morning all the TV Control guys agreed
paul: sounds good
kaz: yes
ryan: the original use cases I
had on the spreadsheet
... will be rewritten
... the architecture is in question
... they're looking the recorder capability as a different
entity
... but a player could be simply connected to a recorder
... the other issue is audio zones
... can be solved by the multiple player approach
... a tuner entity can be actually a player which is tied with tuner
... make sense?
kaz: agree :)
wonsuk: one question
... there was a proposal by VW
... included media tuner capability
... something like spotify
... possible application in vehicle
ryan: current spec doesn't handle
that
... currently specific to TV tuner
... rather tied with hardware
... while I myself don't care about hardware
... but concentrate on resources
... have not looked at VW's proposal itself, though
wonsuk: good question
ryan: have worked with several
OEMs
... players play media based on user's requests
... haven't work with VW but might be similar
wonsuk: ok
... can we share the VW proposal with the other group
participants?
... want to check
ted: I'm working on VW's Member
submission
... which will be public
... including car library, media tuner, etc.
... also CDN service
... hoping we'll publish it before the publication
moratorium
... will send announcement once it's published
wonsuk: ok
... I'm curious about the Member submission
... standardization based on a submission by a W3C Member?
ted: formal submission by a
Member to W3C
... which can be discussed by the BG
wonsuk: ok
... after we have the document from VW, we can share it with
other W3C Members. right?
ted: yes
... expected next week
wonsuk: ok. good.
... any comments?
ryan: interested to see that as a Christmas present :)
wonsuk: we've discussed this
topic before
... at that time, I mentioned we needed to form a TF to revisit
use cases
... and we need to try to add more use cases
... like payments use cases
... also lots of different use cases
<paul> https://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/wiki/Potential_Work_Areas
kaz: do you confirm that direction?
wonsuk: yes
kaz: as Paul put on IRC, there were several work areas
paul: yes, and there were some
more from VW
... how should we handle this?
ted: announcement will be made
during the Member submission procedure
... have conversation
... talking with Ian Jacobs about Payments
... possibly we could have discussion on vehicle-specific use
cases
paul: traffic API as well?
... HERE is not a W3C Member yet. right?
ted: no
... but recently joined GENIVI
rudi: we're waiting for their
input
... maybe we could draft a new charter for backend APIs
paul: the BG is free to explore any use cases
ted: that's correct
kaz: right
<ted> scribenick: ted
kaz: BGs are encouraged to define charter in order to clarify scope to prospects but it does not have to be rigidly defined (unlike WG)
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
paul: ADAS use cases?
rudi: part of the discussion
within GENIVI
... GENIVI is collaborating with OCF
philippe: concerning HERE, not
sure about their intention yet
... their work is very important for the LBS topic
... we'll likely have a meeting in January
<ted> scribenick: ted
kaz: I was wondering how to
handle Geolocation mapping and traffic data in context of LBS
topic
... it should probably be in a single task force
... later it might make sense to create a separate one
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
wonsuk: also thinking about
that
... open APIs on the cloud side for traffic data
paul: could be interested
... what about mapbox? are they a W3C Member?
... monitoring and checking the stuff
... connected with PSA guys?
ted: they're interested in REST APIs but still need some more time
(discussion on infographic about vehicle industry stakeholders)
<ted> http://pass-projekt.de/
<ted> [agree it would be helpful to have a map of different standards bodies involved in auto and their areas. we keep learning of new/duplicate efforts]
<ted> [OMA is trying to have an authorative document along those lines]
<ted> https://wiki.openmobilealliance.org/display/OI/OMA+Report+on+Automotive+Opportunity
<paul> lochbridge infographic connected car
<paul> http://lochbridge.com/blog/next-big-automotive-revolution/
paul: Lochbridge's whitepaper
wonsuk: interesting item to
me
... what about cloud APIs like Amazon?
... we can also sync with existing cloud APIs
... there are companies provide APIs for smart home
... we can think about how to integrate existing APIs like
smart homes and speech APIs
rudi: interesting to me too
... OCF is working on that kind of APIs
... automotive profile is one of their defining profiles
paul: there is a WoT group within W3C as well
rudi: we can integrate capabilities
paul: HERE has mechanism to
integrate location data
... interesting to research quickly
... btw, is anybody could join the call for security?
ted: security call on Thursday
rudi: they're modeling security
portion
... vehicle signal server to get connected
... lot of good momentum
kaz: info on the WoT IG
... they'are launching a WG shortly
... also have restarted the discussion on security and privacy from the viewpoint of WoT
... and would like to invite experts from related groups including the Automotive group
... Hashimoto-san should be a good starting point for the collaborators
paul: what about OCF liaison?
kaz: WoT group is forming liaison with OCF as well
paul: good
... Hashimoto-san's joining the WoT security discussion would be great
... there are different domains
kaz: also my second point is that some of the vehicle capability could/should be handled by a bit more abstract layer like WoT rather than the Vehicle Signal Server
paul: yeah
paul: btw, wondering about the test environment
... Urata-san mentioned he was working on the Web Platform Testing environment
kaz: yes
... as you know, there is the Web Platform Testing infrastructure
... but the framework is developed mainly for pc/mobile Web browsers
... we should be able to use the framework for part of the Vehicle Signal Spec features since the framework includes WebSocket capability (for pc/mobile browsers) as well
... however, we need to add modules to get vehicle data on the Vehicle Signal Server side and send the data to the Vehicle Signal Client side
Kaz's note on the resources from the Web Platform Tests Project:
- Web Platform Tests Project
- Test Suite for Web Platform Testing infrastracture
- Web Platform Test Runner site
paul: ok
... this topic itself is not really the topic for the BG but
I'll put it together
... anything else for today?
wonsuk: anything else?
(none)
[ adjourned ]