<scribe> Scribe: Ted
<scribe> scribenick: ted
<scribe> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Auto-f2f-oct-2020#Monday.2C_12_October
[IRC, minuting, oberserver input]
Ted: introducing this topic today
and will revisit, finalize at the end of this week's
meetings
... Peter and I will meet to turn group's findings into new
draft charter
current Auto & Transportation BG charter
Ted: our current charter expires
at the end of the year
... VISS should have been completed, we could reach PR in next
week or two and PR->REC is like an extended last call
... Gen2 has been drawn out and we are way behind on our
timeline. Gen2 scope (roadmap) on today's agenda and it should
influence our expectations
... made this plea before but we clearly need to increase group
participation, additional editors and not just spectators, in
order to increase momentum
... Patrick L's was a strong initial driver but participation
has waned. Ulf and Isaac (mostly on Access Control) have been
doing an excellent job but we can clearly do more, faster if
remaining work divided up
... our performance and group involvement, clear signs of
increased commitment and more concrete roadmap will increase
our chances of support from W3C Management and Membership in
being rechartered
... roadmap being worked on in conjunction with GENIVI, CVII
which will be discussed later today.
... that CVII outreach to GENIVI and W3C Members and prospects
significant part of participation campaign
... reiterate request to review current W3C Members your
companies are partnering with so we can engage them. they are
typically in vastly different departments
Ted: as a sidenote on topic of
Chairs. I will ask Patrick if he has interest in reengaging and
remaining Chair
... is anyone else interested in this role? no compensation
other than clout... please consider, discuss with your manager
and with Peter and/or myself on what is involved
Peter: I agree we could use more
Chair involvement, this year has been extremely strange and
would appreciate another active chair
... do we have spot on agenda where we could fit in a status
overview for the group
Ted: for work deliverables to
include in our recharter
... VISS PR->REC, should be mostly ushering but may
experience a surprise
... RPC clearly getting off to a strong start
... in-vehicle application Best Practices as more is needed
than just data model and protocols to breech long standing
industry impasse on OEM/supplier/partner
... hearing some moderate interest on previous proposal from a
few individuals (Arman, Armin, Ashish and Isaac)
... my rough notes need to be polished into a draft as a
starting point, we could/should conduct separate breakout call
if enough agree this is worth taking up
... VSSo has been stalled, awaiting IPR commitment from EURECOM
in form of Member Submission. VSSo combines VSS with W3C
Spatial Data on the Web (SDW) core ontologies for Time and
Sensors. these core concepts are receiving revisions and
extensions and would benefit from automotive/transportation use
case input and experiences
... TOCC work still early, formative and unclear where any
standards would be worked on, more likely in SDW (also
undergoing rechartering from Interest Group->Working Group)
given ontology focus and other
Joakim: while you haven't seen
any data for GraphQL project, there have been a number of
internal important questions
... let's keep it open and continue trying to push it
Arman: re Best Practices, I see
the promise and agree there needs to be further guidance on how
to use these standards
... it is clearly important to increase adoption and prevent
misuse
... may help raise visibility in how it could be applied
Peter: I think it is an important area
Ulf: is there any documentation so far?
Gunnar: I agree on need for a
first outline to get people thinking about it further
... also add happy to support this work. It is not a topic on
GENIVI agenda but also fine to have some differentiation in our
collaboration
Ted: scattered, wiki, minutes and raw notes. can at the least advance wiki
[Ted provides summary of Transportation Ontology Coordination Committee comprised of Open Geospatial Consortium (collaborates with W3C in Spatial Data on the Web activity), ISO Intelligent Transportation Systems and ISO SmartCities which came out of Transportation Data Workshop last year and part of promoting VSS(o) - data at center of our connected vehicle standards mantra]
https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=transportation&num=200
Joakim: can you send link on chat on where to sign up
Ted: I'll sign you up
... that will put you on public-transportation-data@w3.org
mailing list
... our github repo https://github.com/w3c/tocc/
... anything else we should consider for WG charter?
Gunnar: form of concrete deliverables?
Ted: yes
Gunnar: not more from my
perspective on CVII and the technology stack around that
... if there is more people think should be in W3C realm
besides RPC, let us know?
Ted: we can more easily add to BG charter than WG to incubate ideas as gaps are identified
Joakim: could we discuss developing a charging branch?
Ted: sure
Gunnar: we have EV signals in VSS
Ted: more to do besides just the raw signals, interested in this area myself
Joakim: the landscape is becoming
more diversified and would like to see more partners
involved
... it is a more complex problem than just signals and can
develop use cases
Daniel: it can be part of ontology work too
Gunnar: the definition of such
interfaces and needs are important to be done somewhere
... as for actual charging, physical outlet there are other
standards organizations
... out of scope for GENIVI and assume same for W3C but
services, analysis and route planning that could be within
RPC
Joakim: cars, power suppliers and
agents/operators - multiple actors requires coordination. I am
not speaking of the physical connectors
... would be important for all parties to collaborate and
facilitate car charging
Daniel: we have had discussion about this in W3C Web of Things and one thing I wanted to bring that and W3C Auto together
Gunnar: is there an IoT need for EV charging?
Daniel: use case is basically
allowing home charging stations to be used by others as well as
intelligent house interactions
... not just IoT
Ted: lots of similarities in WoT and RPC, simply another protocol to achieve the same thing and can share service catalog. WoT approach might provide additional flexibility, custom thing descriptions besides regular catalog capabilities
Gunnar: auto industry should be leading needs for charging cars more than IoT, what you say about protocols and commonality makes sense
Daniel: we quickly step into
others' domains, such as energy suppliers
... there may be other partners in helping define this
Gunnar: there are already energy
suppliers in contact with GENIVI and Geotab, maybe this group
sometime as well
... there are cases where you move into home there can be more
alignment
Joakim: I think W3C has a unique
position given its reputation and RF standards that is
appealing
... there may be aspects to add to VSSo which is already using
other W3C standards in addition to GENIVI VSS
... it can align more with SmartCities, etc
Gunnar: GENIVI also creates open
standards wrt licensing, in some regards maybe more open
... W3C Member Submissions for example has restrictions and
doesn't allow derivatives
Joakim: glad to hear that
Gunnar: regarding VSS being a GENIVI thing, it is shared initiative with W3C
Ted: I am hearing clear interest in
EV ecosystem use case evaluation and how it ties into our work
... I will add to the Business Group (which acts as an incubator
for us) charter. Joakim, you and I should try to flush out initial
ideas and can schedule breakout call like we do for RPC after
Peter: support Gunnar that we should still keep this aligned with VSS
Gunnar: I am eager to learn more about VSSo
Joakim: I am coming from semantic
interests of Volvo and assume BMW has similar interests
... it may bring in other ontologies for other, related domains
that we could possibly reuse
Gunnar: what we are looking for
as alignment
... we are strengthening collaboration between GENIVI and
W3C
Ted to add EV charging use cases to BG charter
Daniel: looking to work on more related areas as VSS2.0 reaches maturity
Ted: we have addressed a number of outstanding items in the Gen2 roadmap, meanwhile other ideas have been introduced
* RPC - deemed separate spec although desired to align (separate agenda item later this week)
* Push/Pull
* incorporating sampling methodologies in service subscription, eg Curve algorithm, time interval, event driven
* compression, serialization and alternate formats (separate agenda item later this week)
Ted: we have addressed a number of outstanding items in the Gen2 roadmap, meanwhile other ideas have been introduced
* RPC - deemed separate spec although desired to align (separate agenda item later this week)
* Push/Pull
* incorporating sampling methodologies in service subscription, eg Curve algorithm, time interval, event driven
* compression, serialization and alternate formats (separate agenda item later this week)
Gunnar: also measurement jobs for lack of better term, requesting data recorded for a period of time and collected
Ted: service to cache and store?
Gunnar: eg if a signal goes above
10, record additional signals
... different from subscriptions
Ted: I could see that being in the client but also argument for service
Ulf: what I would like to see is support for historic data and see jobs like you describe in service domain
Gunnar: historic not necessarily realistic, service might not store large amounts of abitrary data for possible later interest
Ulf: I see need for local storage if it there is a network disconnect
[I see that aligning with Push/Pull optimization topic]
Gunnar: Sensoris has concept of measurement jobs and see this in the whole scope, doesn't necessarily need to be in Gen2
Ted: formal chapter, terminology etc
I see as part of a spec walk through perhaps best with a subset of
us before bringing back to the full group
... after updating Gen2 roadmap we only have Queries left of
substantive pieces, unless later this week we decide to graduate
items from wishlist to current scope
Ted: Gunnar and I will provide an
overview of roundtables and campaign to date, want input on
messaging and invitee ideas from Auto WG
... 27 October, during GENIVI AMM there will be a 3.5h workshop
on Connected Vehicle Interface Initiative (CVII)
GENIVI AMM agenda, see Tuesday 27, October (better anchor link?)
Ted: we want to provide a high
level overview of standards activity to GENIVI, W3C Members and
invitees, fuller picture of the various pieces (ours, ExtVeh,
prototype)
... additional OEM besides those currently involved in
GENIVI+W3C are now proponents, some on panel
... provide opportunity for other stakeholder (supplier,
service provider, prospective tech company partners)
perspective
... explain problem statements and need to getting past long
outstanding roadblock towards interop and new business
opportunities it provides
Gunnar: hope we can book some additional time later this week for slide review, etc
Ted: absolutely
Gunnar: Connected Vehicle
Interface Initiative (CVII) at its core is a discussion with
the industry on the whole related architecture, building on top
of VSS and VSC
... isn't it time we make this a reality with common data model
and potential of this effort from within vehicle to the
cloud
... it is a strong statement that GENIVI and W3C are driving
this together
... part of this is also to recognize this goes across multiple
organizations which is why we have outreach to Sensoris,
seeking alignment with JASPR
... Toyota has been on our OEM roundtables. there is some
similar standardization in JASPR
... think you are familiar with Sensoris which also has a
common data catalog
... there is also AutoSAR we would like to align with them.
GENIVI has worked in aligning with them for years such as
AutoSAR XML and FrancaIDL
... it is an initiative and conversation with the industry, get
their input on how to achieve this
... JLR is the initial driver on RPC and accompanying service
catalog as most of you know
... we are moving that forward. we want to hear about
alternatives and trying to seek alignment
... we have analyzed what this means. I talk about model and
catalog, common list of signals and service interfaces for
RPC
... model is rules for how to write that list. there has been
confusion about this VSS project. does someone need to accept
the full list of signals to adopt this, etc
... on top of this is the technology stack, not just the
protocol standards but libraries etc to leverage and
utilize
... we point to the advantage of having these common core
concepts from signal inception all the way to the cloud
... we have so far in a GENIVI tradition held OEM only
roundtables as a useful way to get the conversation
started
... we have noticed if we have it too broad to others in the
industry, it even stiffles discussion
... we will hear statements and plans from additional OEMs in
starting this work
... this is a joint initiative and think it is worth clarifying
we are not competing but collaborating organizations
Ted: want have succint bullet points and description for breakout session wiki
Ted: additional ideas for
breakout sessions? we can/should check in again toward end of
this week's meetings
... eg EV charging interactions as mentioned earlier would be a
great one, involving WoT
Daniel: you said model is at the
root. I remember having discussion with VW on data model and
how we were talking different languages...
... rest is rule set, we diagramed all that. are we going away
from that, concerned about term 'model'
Gunnar: fair point. I use catalog
more than model, understand we settled on taxonomy
... in my opinion model is not list of signals and use catalog
there
... we can speak how there are other catalogs, proprietary
extensions people made or how Sensoris is not comfortable with
their data in VSS tree but a private branch
... all of these things are in some sense equivalent
... I started by clarifying we need common instead of different
camps for the industry
Ted: not reopening that debate.
we should use multiple terms for 'model' as some won't get
taxonomy
... been trying to engage other departments in VW that are more
focused on telematics than infotainment. Patrick L reached out,
received name of someone but no intro within VW
Gunnar: taxonomy speaks to the
hierarchical structure, more than just a list. I do like the
simpler term model even though hierarchy is great
... I will share slides I have so we can work on that together.
We have some new companies involved in this initiative who may
have other terms
Daniel: I am fine with
everything, just want to have it clear
... I am not religious, people do often use 'data model'
[adjourned]