Automotive Working Group Teleconference

PatrickL: Benjamin brought two topics for today, he is seeking experience with JSON-LD
... second is goals for upcoming TPAC meeting

JSON-LD

Slides

Benjamin: WoT had a plugfest last week, many impressive company efforts demonstrated
... goal was to create interoperability between these platforms with WoT
... device has some metadata and knowledge about it, certain capabilities (HVAC, engine, door in case of car)
... you can have interactions between them, perhaps events you want to listen for
... they have schema for input/output
... they have certain amount of semantic information to be able to identify what it is and its capabilities
... concept of heater (car HVAC) already known thing in IoT
... you can include all the hidden information as part of the meta data
... thing description for car is serialized in JSON-LD

[accompanying slides from WoT, will get URI from Benjamin after]

Benjamin: regarding representing car we can use schema.org and VSSO representations
... when I parse this serialized data I get things like brand, vin, etc
... I can get speed, action to activate ESC
... this serialization enables including these various data types
... semantic types tell me about all the capabilities this thing has, means to access (protocol and security mechanisms)
... that is a short introduction to how cars can be represented in WoT

PatrickL: it looks like a very capable way of describing what we are representing

Benjamin: normally would use different serialization but those formats mean nothing for your average developer. this is more intuitive for average developer, familiar with JSON
... we should have a concrete look for our case
... we are already delivering payloads in JSON

Ulf: is this a replacement for VSS?

Benjamin: VSS could be used in this case either as the construction scheme for URIs
... this is href system similar to your earlier naming convention for elements
... VSS context would be available in thing description context. it can be used to describe the thing and its interactions
... ontology schemas are very powerful

Ulf: would this be stored within the car, in the cloud?

Benjamin: there are usually two descriptions, a public more available to developers and private with more limited interactions
... it provides documentation about what can be found at a URI
... this serialization is pretty useful to provide semantic annotations

PatrickL: regarding where it would be stored, to me this is a description of the onotology. it provides the scope of what the API could access
... I could see a W3C component and underlying company solution. it would be possible to use the same mechanism to expose additional (private) information

Benjamin: to expose for instance different regional capabilities for the same vehicle?

PatrickL: no, I could provide a W3C view of the underlying vehicle information and a VW specific one through the same mechanism
... how do you see this fitting our future needs?

Benjamin: it will likely become important in our data needs

Introducing Daniel Wilms

Daniel: I am Daniel coming from BMW, I joined the W3C WoT meeting and have been invited to attend this as well
... we would like to see how this work is evolving, will join you at TPAC and we are evaluating becoming involved

TPAC

https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/F2F-201810

Benjamin: I went through the last minutes and we had some high level ideas on groups we wanted to meet
... most clear was Ted's email of potential groups we would want to meet with

Liaison

Ted explains liaisons with other groups, how we need to identify which topics, whether we would get a handful or warrants full cross group discussion

PatrickL: adding to the wiki Benjamin was structuring, agree on JSON-LD, WebRTC
... regarding Devices and Sensors, do we want to meet with them again?

Benjamin: depends who is available, they are meeting on Tuesday when we would be on data tf topics

PatrickL: what would be topic to discuss with them?

Ted: [gives recap on past interaction/influence] perhaps on adding new sensors, eg aftermarket, into vehicle

Ulf: for streaming data topic

PatrickL: adding to wiki
... you wrote TAG as well, do we have enough to talk to them again? seems they are interested in a more concrete description

Ted: I can try to get a few for Thursday on protocoless and v2 in general

PatrickL: WoT is obvious
... regarding authentication, I would really like to talk with them about identifying users

Ted: agree, more a small consulting request or session on unconf day

PatrickL: we met with Web Commerce previously but seems like there is not much there at this time

Ted: agree, in short it is feasible with some parts needing work such as transmitting securely payments URI to vehicle
...a couple of the major payment providers expressed willingness to explore if an OEM was willing. we can revisit if there is later interest

PatrickL: re HTTPS in Local Network CG, do others see benefit in meeting with them?

Magnus: I think it would be useful, it is something we struggled with

PatrickL: agree we have similar interests with WoT people
... anything for Linked Building Data CG?
... it would be interesting to hear from them

Ted: perhaps just keep an eye on them to avoid loosing too much time to liaison meetings

PatrickL: or send delegation
... Ted will you reach out to them and place corresponding blocks in our agenda?

Ted: yes, will do

PatrickL: ideas for next week's agenda?

Ulf: regarding TPAC agenda, didn't we say we should settle our major directions regarding version 2 and then start in earnest?

PatrickL: I remember that as well, it will be on the agenda

[adjourned]