W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > November 2016

[auto-wg] minutes - 15 November 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 03:36:10 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9WxdgbtgwkEhfQxP2Uwyf3w2QX4KZzVQnb4hPWMdkZH7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
available at:

also as text below.

The next WG call will be held on Dec. 6 at:
- 5pm: US Pacific
- 8pm: US Eastern
- 1am+1d (=Dec. 7): UK
- 2am+1d (=Dec. 7): Europe
- 9am+1d (=Dec. 7): China
- 10am+1d (=Dec. 7): Korea/Japan




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                             Automotive WG

15 Nov 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/15-auto-irc


          Kaz, Paul, Peter, Shinjiro, Adam, Patrick, Song, Kevin,

          Paul, Peter



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Agenda and Welcoming VW
         2. [5]WG Charter Update
         3. [6]Possible Member Submission for VIWI Proposal
         4. [7]Issues with the Spec
         5. [8]Testing
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

Agenda and Welcoming VW

   paul: don't have concrete agenda for today but can talk about
   the updates
   ... spec issues, reviews, etc.

   kaz: we can briefly check the status and confirm our policy

   paul: also Kevin and Adam for spec
   ... basically, VW has just joined W3C
   ... the question in Burlingame was that we were working on our
   ... we have discussed with VW guys
   ... the Automotive BG is working on new proposals
   ... creates reports and donates ideas to the WG
   ... so the approach is working with the BG first
   ... happy to have another OEM
   ... that's my summary

   ted: VIWI includes not only vehicle information but media
   information, etc.
   ... VW was interested in volunteering for the vehicle signal
   side as well

   patrick: from our side, this is a good path to take
   ... don't want to influence the spec itself at the moment
   ... VIWI is something the BG could be interested
   ... we need feedback
   ... just vehicle information is not enough
   ... feedback from the BG and the community would make perfect

   kevin: welcome VW's participation
   ... tx for joining us
   ... the RESTful interface is interesting
   ... working within the BG first would be a good approach

   patrick: tx!

   peter: really great to have VW on board!

   paul: great!

WG Charter Update

   paul: btw, I saw comments for the proposed new Charter
   ... what's the update?

   ted: responded to the commenter
   ... initial misunderstanding was using cloud services from the
   vehicle using the interface

   peter: Rudi made some statement
   ... found it's kind of defensive
   ... need to explain the misunderstood point
   ... didn't see any more responses other than Rudi and Wonsuk

   ted: we should be fine

   paul: only one objection?

   ted: yes

   paul: conversation with them?

   ted: know the commenter
   ... will work for the objection
   ... we should incorporate feedback
   ... very busy this week but will talk with them

Possible Member Submission for VIWI Proposal

   ted: another point is VW's submitting their VIWI proposal to
   W3C as a Member submission
   ... so that we can get feedback from the community

   patrick: how to do that?

   ted: there is a specific procedure
   ... write a template for the submission
   ... can help you

   patrick: we can do that but is that the most common way?
   ... would be easy to use the common path
   ... if it's not only putting on GitHub, we may need some kind
   of extra agreement within the company

   ted: there are two paths: 1. BG report (discussion within the
   BG) and 2. Member submission

   patrick: ok

   paul: anything else on this topic?


Issues with the Spec

   paul: the next topic is issues with the spec
   ... JSON schema and WebIDL?

   adam: proposal on equivalent way
   ... machine readable
   ... maybe we should go with the approach with WebIDL and think
   about how to apply JSON Schema
   ... JSON Schema is quite good way

   kevin: pros and cons with the both

   <Paul> [11]https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/99

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/99

   patrick: there is always object definition
   ... JSON Schema on our side is the foundation
   ... could generate human readable WebIDL based on that
   ... we're generating that ourselves

   adam: that's encouraging

   paul: makes sense to me

   kevin: good idea to change something obvious and see it

   paul: what about the spec actions?
   ... any comments?
   ... simple implementations?
   ... testing?
   ... that's the way to go

   paul: have not got many comments for the FPWD yet

   kevin: what about the client spec?

   paul: Powell is busy for a while

   <Paul> [12]https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/91

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/91

   adam: can take an action item for issue 91

   paul: there are quite a few action items
   ... should go through during the next call on Dec. 6
   ... very late for Adam and Patrick, though
   ... and we have another action for the client spec and need to
   ping Powell
   ... high-level API for Web developers


   kaz: regarding testing, Hira-san mentioned he and Urata-san
   were interested in testing

   shinjiro: right
   ... I'm creating a server prototype for initial testing
   ... can make contribution for our testing

   paul: great

   shinjiro: one question is that the W3C testing environment is
   for usual Web browsers
   ... on the other hand, the vehicle spec is not for usual

   paul: we have a framework for testing servers
   ... maybe I can provide that
   ... let me ask Jeff about that
   ... might help since there is same pattern

   shinjiro: great
   ... also there is test mechanism for Node.js
   ... maybe that would be useful

   paul: Patrick, do you have any mechanism?

   patrick: regular Web tools
   ... we use REST

   paul: right
   ... will talk with our QA team
   ... may have example tests

   patrick: postman automated tests
   ... continuous integration
   ... UI tool
   ... we're doing HTTP and WebSocket is extension with our
   implementation, though

   paul: the basic framework is similar
   ... would be helpful

   peter: what would we test?
   ... implementation or spec?

   paul: basically testing the sections of the spec

   peter: ok. we're not testing the implementations

   paul: implementations meet the spec

   peter: an issue on testing I created on GitHub

   paul: issue 75

   <Paul> [13]https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/75

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/75

   peter: Urata-san, can you describe what are you planning to do?

   shinjiro: about the testing?

   peter: yes

   shinjiro: creating a prototype implementation first
   ... and then create test suite
   ... that's what I want to try

   paul: one of the deliverables
   ... we need two implementations
   ... the test need to be doable

   kaz: we need to be able to point to two implementations of the
   spec to see implementability and interoperability of the spec,
   though the implementations themselves are not W3C deliverables

   kevin: one thing to see is VSS implementation could be a
   reference one

   paul: test against mach server and test against data generator
   ... what are you doing with VSS, Urata-san?
   ... how do you implement it?

   shinjiro: I'm creating a VSS server using Node.js
   ... need some data source as an alternative of the actual
   ... can test the implementation using the mocked-up data
   ... so I have a VSS server and an emulation server

   paul: great
   ... sounds like ACCESS is doing an implementation
   ... Melco as well, Peter
   ... VSS as a data model
   ... people can contribute to implementations
   ... I would do my best as well
   ... next meeting on Dec. 6

   kaz: regarding testing, I'll ask TV guys about their knowledge
   about testing environment as well

   paul: ok

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([15]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/11/15 18:17:01 $

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 18:37:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:01 UTC