Automotive Working Group Teleconference

15 May 2018



Ted, Marty, Paul, Joakim, Ulf, PatrickL, Gunnar, Laurent, Urata


<PatrickLue> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/266

Starting Point

PatrickL: Ulf brought up starting point, settling on which of the existing approaches and then how to build upon it

Ulf: that is a good summary

PatrickL: I was taking a look at the features and then how we could design a solution
... I want to avoid the loop we have been in

Ulf: my proposal to avoid the loop and comparison if we make a clear decision up front

PatrickL: I wanted to look at it in the abstract first whereas you want a concrete example in front of us
... we also have an email from Gunnar for consideration
... yes my role is to try to bring the solution we have forward to W3C for possible standardization
... if it were well received we have more modules to bring forward
... I could explore getting permission internally about bringing those forward if that helps the group's consideration
... I do not want the group to be restricted on either solution but bring forward a best solution

Gunnar: I like stepping outside the box as well
... I asked to compare the data sets, see how we cover the signals not the format itself
... my point is not to force one order or solution
... if the group agrees to have a poll I will participate


Joakim: the proposal is to make a decision on the three options in front of us, use VISS, ViWi or from scratch

Gunnar: we need to discuss the different possibilities before voting
... one possible way forward is stay with VISS/VSS for signals and ViWi for the other domains but that didn't see to go over well

Ulf: if we were to choose VISS as the starting point, I had some concrete suggestions for what to add
... the data model in VSS should be enhanced to have more object like nodes like ViWi uses. enhancing the data model and ViWi type of query mechanisms we could then adopt the media domain from ViWi more easily
... it would be possible to go your route after that exercise

Laurent: what I liked about the feature exercise that PatrickL is bringing us through is we collectively express what we need
... we can free ourselves from both and take features from each as we discuss. tree model and query for example
... I do not have strong ties with either at this point

Joakim: what is your area of interest?

Laurent: sensors/actuators. I see the reasoning of a tree structure
... we have two sides since they are influenced in what we know. I do not see them as very different
... we are saying some of the same things with different vocabularies

Joakim: I also wasn't part of the group earlier
... there are car experts here and legacy with depth and details, trying to cover it would be a long exercise

Paul: a few things expressed resonated with me
... people have been favorable or critical of individual features from each
... we have two approaches and set out to solve the problem in slightly different ways
... this group now has more focus and perspective
... going over what we want, whether feature is from either approach or independent
... I want to see coalescing of the group

Ted: I like the idea of continuing this feature exercise and then can construct a poll

Paul: if modeling the data with both structured and flat views. @@

Ulf: agree we can make a better decision if we are better informed

<Paul> Gunnar proposed looking at different data and approaches

<Paul> He suggested getting various sets together for comparison

PatrickL: sounds like people are open to having features based discussion in abstract, avoiding concrete influences of the two approaches
... people are welcome to present alternatives to the group but I think we would be better focused on a single task for now

Gunnar: we will be influenced from our collective past experiences

Paul: the feature topics should come together, we would need to avoid looping discussions on them

Laurent: that is what I want, for us to be influenced from past experiences. as you say we are not starting from scratch
... this would be a good exercise

Gunnar: especially if we adhere to goal of retaining backwards compatability

Paul: how should we go forward?

Joakim: I like the idea of identifying the leaves first, certain core signals

Paul: we did that some time ago, where we defined core signals with GM and JLR

Gunnar: did that feed into VSS?

Paul: it did
... I would need to find the artifacts in wiki etc

Gunnar: we can have a main track we are trying to do with the group as PatrickL said but allow people to attempt alternates and bring back to the group

Joakim: I see the data model as key

Laurent: tell us why?

Joakim: it is one way to move forward

Laurent: what are the features you want in the data model?

Joakim: having a URL to provide a web developer the vehicle speed

Laurent: that is a valuable feature and to have in mind when creating such an API
... providing the developer with the features they want. you provide us a why in a feature list and explore it

Joakim: who is this new charter for? the earlier one was from car experts
... we are also getting into other modules. we do not want to create features that developers don't care about

PatrickL: it seems we are in agreement to continue on this exercise, capturing ideas and work
... while we can have parallel activities, I want clear features list

Paul: agree, we just want to avoid losing thoughts and encourage people to contribute them to the wiki
... I want everyone to be responsible for capturing ideas and contributing them to the wiki

PatrickL: I have some ideas for furthering this in an email discussion until next call and in the meantime please feel free to contribute to the wiki


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/05/17 16:32:06 $