Re: Draft Auto WG recharter

On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 08:40 +0100, Gunnar Andersson wrote:
> 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".  

Actually, let me clarify.  It makes sense and the work includes VISS of
course. The intention is to include vehicle signalling, but we already have
a name for that specification, was my point. (see below also)

> 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).

All in all, (IMHO), the *work* we intend to do, includes VISS of course, but
rather than having the RSI moniker mean various things, I'd drop it
completely and be more explicit about what we intend to do.  That includes
vehicle signalling work leading to a version 2 of VISS.

Hope that's clearer.

- Gunnar

> 
> 
> > 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 08:05:02 UTC