Re: Draft Auto WG recharter

On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 13:43 -0500, Ted Guild wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 20:49 +0000, Paul Boyes wrote:
> > Here are my thoughts:
> > 
> > --Perhaps a phone working session on the charter might be helpful?
> 
> +1
> 
> > —With RSI subsume VISS?  Will they remain separate?  It is not clear
> > from the current draft.

I'm not sure if the question even makes sense to me.  If RSI "subsumed"
VISS, then I think you have yet some other definition of "RSI".  I've asked
repeatedly for a clear definition...  As far as I can remember and
understand a combination of responses, it's a loose concept basically like
this:    RSI ~= "The upcoming work needed to define a REST-based access to
vehicle signals, and to other services (and subsequent specifications coming
out of that)"

In my opinion "VISS version 2", is accurated for describing the further
development of the vehicle signals specification.  The other services remain
separate although will strive to achieve similarity.  This similarity will
be possible by separating the protocol from data definition, but I'm also
convinced we will realize that a "signal definition" (appropriate for
vehicle signals) and defining the operations provided by a service (for
navigation, media playback and other), might not always benefit from the
exact same type of definition.  But we'll find out as we go along, and of
course strive for maximum similarity.

So this is the work we all want to do but the abbreviation adds no clarity.
My proposal would be to drop the RSI moniker completely from this working
group because it doesn't seem to mean much.  If "RSI" only means
"REST/HTTP", write REST/HTTP so the rest of the world understands.  Let the
charter name clearly and directly name the intended services/functions to be
developed, and in so far it is already decided, the intended ways and
technologies (REST/HTTP). 

If RSI means something else, please again try to answer with a definition
for my understanding (apologies if I missed something earlier, feel free to
reference).


> We haven't discussed that formality and it doesn't need to be in the
> charter.
> 
> > —I agree with PatrickL’s move away from the term Infotainment to
> > Vehicle Function. (See comments on Patrick’s pull request).

+1

> 
> Agree, I recycled wording from the previous charter and like Patrick's
> better.
> 
> > —I suggest we revisit scope.  It is ok, but could likely be cleaned
> > up.

I haven't but need to look once more and give feedback.  I was going to ask
for a deadline but then saw Ted's followup and his desire to close it this
week, tomorrow even.  It's tight but let's try to get it ready, i.e.
consensus, as soon as we possibly can.

Thanks,
- Gunnar


> > 
> > Otherwise, it is looking good to me.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Paul J. Boyes | INRIX | Director of Telematics and Standards -
> > OpenCar  |  206-276-9675 | paul.boyes@inrix.com | www.inrix.com
> > 
> > > On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Here is the start of draft re-charter for Auto WG 
> > > 
> > > http://w3c.github.io/automotive/charter-2018.html
> > > 
> > > The @@ indicate dates are pending for VISS to CR. I expect us to
> > > publish VISS before sending this charter to the AC. I welcome input
> > > and
> > > will seek review from W3C Management before sending to the AC.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> > > W3C Systems Team
> > > http://www.w3.org
> > > 
> > 
> >

Received on Monday, 29 January 2018 07:41:45 UTC