Re: VSS and VIWI

>>  I have a feeling that both tracks will suffer from adapting to each
other/ and in the end we could end up with something of inferior technical
quality. For Volvo cars we see VSS as a key element to the W3C submission
and we want to continue this work going forward.

I fully agree with Peter that if VSS cannot be adopted as is into VIWI/RSI,
then I think we would be much better off with developing two separate
specifications.
I think this is such an important decision for the group that we should
start a survey of what is the WG members opinion on this.
The alternatives in such a survey could be three:
- Develop one specification, built mainly on VIWI/RSI.
- Develop one specification, built mainly on VISS/VSS.
- Develop two specifications, i.e. develop both alternatives above.

BR
Ulf


On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:59 AM Peter Winzell <peter.winzell@jayway.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi All!
> Some thoughts for tomorrows’ meeting.  Looking at the VIWI submission and
> the VIWI data model and how to keep VSS intact.
> For me it seems that the we would try to map the VSS data model against
> the viwi.service.car definition.
>
> In VIWI  we have a number of vehicle data objects defined such as
> car/info. infoObjects where we are able to retrieve the VIN is one such
> object:
>
> /car/info/<vinidentifier>
>
> In VSS:
> Vehicle.VehicleIdentification.VIN
>
> In Vss the vin number is defined as the tree branch
> Vehicle.VehicleIdentification.VIN
>
> Vehicle — |
>                  —|
>                     VehicleIndentification —|
>                                                           VIN
>                  —|
>                      …
> …
>
>  In this case we have two tree structures with the depth 3. This seems to
> match pretty well ?
>
> However, VIWI limits the depth of the tree structure to 3 , which in the
> following example makes VSS incompatible with the current VIWI data model :
>
> In VSS:
> Vehicle.Cabin.Seat.Row4.Pos1.Isbelted.
>
> In this case we would try to match this we would have to define 3 more
> vehicle data objects:
> /Vehicle/Cabin/Seat
>           - available seat objects would be returned by a GET request, row
> would be one such object which links to the
> /Vehicle/Row/Rowobjects
>          - available row objects  returned by a GET request. Which links
> to positionObjects
> /Vehicle/Pos/Positionobjects
>         — Isbelted element
>
> This would keep the tree limit - in my view this would transform the VSS
> data model into something not VSS although we have some sort of mapping ?..
> The other way around is not possible since this would make the current VIWI
> model incompatible with present in-vehicle implementations if I understand
> correctly. So I now see us spitting the spec into two separate tracks where
> we have  VISS/VSS and VIWI submitted as the W3C signal specification. I
> have a feeling that both tracks will suffer from adapting to each other/
> and in the end we could end up with something of inferior technical
> quality. For Volvo cars we see VSS as a key element to the W3C submission
> and we want to continue this work going forward.
>
> Br
> Peter Winzell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Ulf Bjorkengren
*Geotab*
Senior Connectivity Strategist | Ph. D.
Mobile +45 53562142
Visit www.geotab.com