- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:09:00 +0900
- To: Shinjiro Urata <shinjiro.urata@access-company.com>
- Cc: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9U40vyu9XOJpxBQGj7WLjkGotjCovPPFFBwYuBygamZVg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Shinjiro Urata < shinjiro.urata@access-company.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > As written in the minutes > > ==>> > hira: can I go back to the API discussion? > ... had some discussion on Issue 72 last week > ... didn't see big advantage with the new proposal > ... so would clarify Pros/Cons of the current API and the new > proposal > .... > .... > > urata: agree with Hira-san, and would clarify the discussion > points > ... because there are multiple discussion points in the thread > <<== > > As a trial, I have created tables in the Github wiki to summarize > point of discussion and trying to fill it. > (Mainly for the people who are not following the detail of discussion). > > If you find this useful, hopefully please add/edit/correct the table > to reflect the final status of the discussion. > > https://github.com/w3c/automotive/wiki > Thanks a lot, Urata-san! I think this summary is really helpful for the discussion during the call today: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-automotive/2016Feb/0006.html Kazuyuki > > > Best regards, > ==================== > Shinjiro URATA > ACCESS CO., LTD. > ==================== > > > 2016-02-04 3:31 GMT+09:00 Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>: > >> available at: >> https://www.w3.org/2016/02/02-auto-minutes.html >> >> also as text below. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kazuyuki >> >> --- >> [1]W3C >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >> >> - DRAFT - >> >> Automotive WG >> >> 02 Feb 2016 >> >> [2]Agenda >> >> [2] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Feb/0000.html >> >> See also: [3]IRC log >> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/03-auto-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Paul_Boyes, Junichi_Hashimoto, Kaz_Ashimura, >> Shinjiro_Urata, Ted_Guild, Wonsuk_Lee, >> Tatsuhiko_Hirabayashi, Dave_Jensen >> >> Regrets >> Chair >> Paul >> >> Scribe >> kaz, ted >> >> Contents >> >> * [4]Topics >> 1. [5]April f2f >> 2. [6]Issue 72 >> 3. [7]Testing >> 4. [8]Security >> 5. [9]GENIVI W3C Liaison >> 6. [10]Conferences coming up >> 7. [11]Issue 72 (revisited) >> * [12]Summary of Action Items >> * [13]Summary of Resolutions >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> <ted> [14]Ready Player One (banter while trying to identify >> caller 1. a really fun book that is going to be turned into a >> movie) >> >> [14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Player_One >> >> <inserted> scribenick: kaz >> >> paul: goes through the agenda >> ... anything to add? >> >> (nothing) >> >> April f2f >> >> paul: Genivi will have its Member meeting in April >> ... sent a message about hotel reservation >> ... Soumya from Eurecom will make presentation >> ... any questions? >> >> junichi: goal of the f2f? >> >> paul: Ryan Davis on media tuner >> ... prime goal is going through the spec >> ... testing >> ... security >> ... would coordinate discussion with Genivi >> ... with Tier1 companies from Genivi >> ... anything else? >> >> junichi: wondering how to manage my contribution due to the >> difficulty with schedule >> >> paul: will be hard if you are not there... >> ... would some document on what would you like to see >> >> junichi: would be good to have Genivi guys >> >> paul: Genivi has security guys >> ... great to get what they think about Web technology >> ... security, etc. >> ... we should really get Continental, Visteon, Harman, etc. >> >> ted: Junichi, if you can't make the f2f meeting >> ... we have 2 days for the meeting? >> >> paul: yes >> >> ted: W3C session could be breakout calls >> ... future collaboration between Genivi and W3C >> ... Web browser PoC >> ... very happy to have a pre meeting with Junichi on security >> ... maybe by email we can have some discussion? >> >> junichi: ok >> >> hira: can you arrange a pre meeting on 26th of April on >> security? >> >> ted: can hold a Doodle poll to get good timing for everybody >> >> kaz: not necessarily April 26th? >> >> paul: but sooner? >> >> ted: maybe a week before >> ... can send a poll to the group public list >> >> hira: junichi, when would be good for you? >> >> junichi: f2f on 26 is ok >> ... have to call when it's 27-28 >> >> kaz: junichi, do you mean you can come to Paris on April 26th? >> >> (junichi is gone...) >> >> kaz: junichi, do you mean you can come to Paris on April 26th? >> >> junichi: yes >> ... but not sure if security is a big topic >> >> paul: would like to make security the center topic because >> Genivi security guys will be there >> >> kaz: do you think we can talk with the Genivi security guys as >> well on 26th as a pre meeting? >> >> paul: yes >> ... we need to coordinate with them, though >> ... Ted, what do you think? >> >> ted: we had discussion during TPAC on what is needed >> ... and we can get ideas from Genivi on what they're doing with >> their stack >> ... one of them is joining as an Invited Expert >> ... probably he could provide his insight >> ... would get broader input as well >> ... make sense to have a separate security TF call >> ... during the whole Genivi AMM, could have breakout sessions >> ... some people may or may not members >> >> paul: we can help them pre-coordinate >> >> kaz: so you agree to have a pre-meeting with Hashimoto-san on >> April 26th >> >> junichi: tx >> >> hira: btw, KDDI is not a Genivi member, but can we join the AMM >> meeting? >> >> kaz: is the Genivi meeting for us will be Open Day again? >> >> ted: W3C f2f meeting will be held during the Open Day >> ... totally separate from Genivi >> >> kaz: so theoretically, we'll invite Genivi guys to our meeting >> in Paris/ >> >> ted: W3C is not part of Genivi, but I can ask them to let us >> join (some of) their sessions >> >> paul: e.g., sessions they're debating >> >> kaz: so Hira-san doesn't have to worry >> >> paul: anything else? >> >> (nothing) >> >> Issue 72 >> >> <kaz> [15]https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/72 >> >> [15] https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/72 >> >> <kaz> [16]Invitation for the WG call on Issue 72 >> >> [16] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-automotive/2016Feb/0006.html >> >> <kaz> [17]Paul's message on the Vehicle API Creation Guidelines >> >> [17] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-automotive/2016Feb/0008.html >> >> paul: will set up a call on the Issue 72 next week >> ... really clear to me this issue is regarding the level of >> APIs >> ... vehicle data from car >> ... I posted API guideline >> ... Kevron agrees to join the call >> ... think we can come to the conclusion >> ... without going into the details >> >> kaz: +1 >> >> urata: do we have TAG response? >> ... they posted some comments but their conclusion would be >> gotten at their next meeting >> >> <ted> [18]https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ >> >> [18] https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ >> >> paul: they didn't look at the Issue 72 >> ... so would suggest they look at the Issue 72 >> >> <ted> [they just had their f2f meeting, unsure of their next >> telconfernce. looking] >> >> ted: not seeing response >> ... still have a call next call >> ... Tobie to understand our intention during a broader call >> ... TAG had a f2f meeting, and will have calls every a couple >> of weeks >> ... conventions of APIs changes anyhow >> ... more important is adoption to usage >> >> paul: Tobie was thinking about a bunch of sensors >> ... there are multiple issues on the thread >> ... how do you clean up your garbage >> ... would see a creation guideline >> >> <ted> Paul++ for scheduling all these one on one calls in >> addition to this WG call to clear this up and get various >> perspectives >> >> kaz: +1 >> >> paul: Dave, do you have any comments? >> >> dave: no >> >> paul: Tobie brought up good points >> >> ted: please try to read the issue before the call >> >> paul: there is app lifecycle as well >> >> ted: different time out >> >> paul: app lifecyle is outside of the spec, though >> ... running in the foreground or background, etc. >> >> Testing >> >> paul: Peter is not here >> >> Security >> >> junichi: would like to put ideas from the specs to a Security >> Note >> >> paul: great >> ... regarding the call for issue 72 >> ... planning to have it at 9:30am PST with Tobie >> >> wonsuk: 2:30am for us... >> >> hira: too difficult >> >> paul: any suggestions? >> >> wonsuk: will be recorded in the minutes? >> ... we can read the minutes later >> ... then if we have concerns, we can raise an issue >> >> urata: what Wonsuk said is OK >> ... but I can join the call myself :) >> >> wonsuk: anyway, can read the minutes from the call and raise >> issues if needed >> >> paul: ok >> >> ted: a couple of quick things >> >> GENIVI W3C Liaison >> >> ted: had Genivi/W3C Liaison call >> ... biggest topic was LBS API >> ... collaboration more actively >> ... also testing plan >> >> Conferences coming up >> >> <ted> [19]Roundtable at TU Cybersecurity (Michigan, US) 29-30 >> March >> >> [19] http://www.tu-auto.com/cyber-security/conference-agenda.php >> >> <ted> [20]WWW 2016 (Montreal, CA) 13-14 April >> >> [20] https://www.w3.org/2016/04/w3c-track.html >> >> <ted> [21]AC at MIT (Boston, US) 20-22 March >> >> [21] https://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/2016ac/March/Overview.html >> >> ted: and the other item is conferences coming up >> ... as above >> ... W3C round table >> ... TU cybersecurity in Michigan >> ... discounting for W3C Members >> >> <ted> >> [22]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016JanMa >> r/0051.html (W3C Member-only) >> >> [22] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016JanMar/0051.html >> >> ted: WWW Conference in Montreal in April >> ... somebody interested can have Automotive talks >> ... if there are enough people from the WG, can have a session >> ... lastly AC meeting at MIT on March 20-22 >> ... have a session on industry vertical including automotive >> ... if your AC is interested, we can send an invitation >> >> paul: ok >> ... anything else? >> >> Issue 72 (revisited) >> >> hira: can I go back to the API discussion? >> ... had some discussion on Issue 72 last week >> ... didn't see big advantage with the new proposal >> ... so would clarify Pros/Cons of the current API and the new >> proposal >> >> paul: can ask people to clarify Pros/Cons >> ... who should we ask about that? >> ... would go through the thread and summarize it >> ... after the meeting next week, we should clarify that >> >> <inserted> scribenick: ted >> >> kaz: if there is not a clear compromise after next week's call >> we should have a deeper discussion >> >> <inserted> scribenick: kaz >> >> urata: agree with Hira-san, and would clarify the discussion >> points >> ... because there are multiple discussion points in the thread >> >> wonsuk: agree we need clarification >> >> [ adjourned ] >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> Summary of Resolutions >> >> [End of minutes] >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version >> 1.144 ([24]CVS log) >> $Date: 2016/02/03 18:26:53 $ >> >> [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >> >> >> > > . -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 00:10:16 UTC