Re: Task Forces

Hi, Paul

Thank you for your quick and kind reply.
Your thoughts and comments have been very helpful.

In BG, the Vehicle API specs originally had been drafted as a high-level 
interface
associated with IVI, and this API itself is agnostic of the underlying 
data acquisition technologies in IVI.

As TAG pointed out, we also think a low-level interface between WRT and 
the vehicle
(data broker or application server in IVI) would be important to provide 
interoperability and commonality among WRTs.

However, there are many ways in the low-level interface, which may also 
differ by
WRT for the platform (i.e., multi-threaded browser) and WRT for a 
component (i.e.,
webview).

Even if the low level interface could not be defined, we can provide and 
guarantee 
the interoperability of web apps to users and web apps developers in the 
current
draft spec of Web IDL & Vehicle Data.

If by July, we should confirm difficulties leading to a significant 
delay in 
standardization, which I don't hope, it might be better to expedite 
standardization, 
separating timeline into high-level and low-level.

This would be a contingency plan for earlier release of our outcome.

Best Regards,

Tatsuhiko Hirabayashi, KDDI

PS: I will add my name to task forces by COB Friday, seeing my skill. 
In addition, please keep and add "Security & Privacy Task Force" in Wiki,
 
as Junichi will accelerate drafting of security and privacy issues in 
spec,
from now on.

----- Original Message -----
Hirabayashi-san,

Thanks for the below.  I have added my notes to the wiki here 
https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Task_Forces

See my comments in-line.

Paul J. Boyes | INRIX | Director of Telematics and Standards - OpenCar  
|  206-276-9675 | paul.boyes@inrix.com<mailto:bryan@inrix.com> | www.
inrix.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inrix.com_&d=BQMFAg&c=QbuapHRvbn0JdC8vTVkPHg&r=PRAN7lum5Ra662QLho8LU3bhFjBvLXn3bBkFbW0Amjo&m=V5l0WXfOEJwhcE0JsN06mQ5SQhpXL-DuAuK3YcnTZoc&s=OqQVi_DcS5rv8or8hZdFvY0re6YF0Wl-_8okxrxOF0w&e=>


On May 4, 2016, at 3:02 AM, ta-hirabayashi@kddi-ri.jp<mailto:ta-
hirabayashi@kddi-ri.jp> wrote:

I am wondering if you could share your ideas about the following
questions with everyone, members' bringing some materials and draft
contents at the earliest opportunity(e.g. in July f2f).


As of now, Powell is going to propose format for service spec.  Rudi and 
I are looking at VSS.  I will also look at Data Spec and propose how it 
will be affected.

- How many parts does our spec consist of ?
- Which part of spec can be separately standardized ?
- Which part of spec will we keep the current timeline ?


Great questions.  I highly suggest these questions be answered before 
the next phone meeting.  In other words, the task forces should meet and 
decide.  I suggest each task force have a lead.  But before we get to 
that.  Everyone who was not at the meeting and is interested in a task 
force, please add yourself to the ones you are interested in.  Please do 
so by COB Friday.   As for timeline, I believe we should be complete by 
Q2 of 2017 or Q1 if you wish to be aggressive.  What do you think?  We 
can work backwards from there.

We, KDDI can fully support the conformance testing until March of 2017,
but can hardly expect it after this timeline.


This is great and it puts an emphasis on Q1 2017 as the timeline.  
Thanks KDDI!!

As for ourselves, we have some reasons the current timeline in charter
could not be so easily changed.

I understand.  Comments anyone else on timeline?


Your understanding and cooperation would be appreciated in advance.


　　　　　　　　　　〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜
　　　　　　　　　　ＫＤＤＩ総研

　　　　　　　　　　平林　立彦
　　　　　　　　　　HIRABAYASHI Tatsuhiko
　　　　　　　　　　Tel: 03-6678-1946(代表)
　　　　　　　　　　Mobile: 080-5941-4506
　　　　　　　　　　Fax: 03-6678-0339
　　　　　　　　　　E-mail: ta-hirabayashi@kddi.com
　　　　　　　　　　Address: 〒102‐8460
　　　　　　　　　　東京都千代田区飯田橋3-10-10
　　　　　　　　　　ガーデンエアタワー33階
　　　　　　　　　　〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜

Received on Thursday, 5 May 2016 14:19:55 UTC