Re: Gen2 data model questions

A couple more:

Can you conceive features that may be added to VSS2 that should not be
accommodated by Gen2? Y/N (example being, would not expect the ontology
work to be useful in-vehicle more on the cloud)

Do you support considering flagging some VSS2 attributes as optional in
order to keep implementations reasonable for Gen2? Y/N

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 18:19 -0400, Ted Guild wrote:
> We have been stuck on one topic far and may come down to a ballot
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/pull/298
> 
> Related minutes:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2019/03/26-auto-minutes.html
> https://www.w3.org/2019/03/19-auto-minutes.html
> https://www.w3.org/2019/03/12-auto-minutes.html
> 
> My thoughts on questions below, the ballot will allow for comments on
> Y/N and select questions.
> 
> Is your understanding Gen2 is meant for exposing data using VSS as
> the
> data model? Y/N
> 
> Which version? VSS1
>                VSS2
>                VSS-other
> 
> Should the Gen2 spec use stronger language expressing alignment with
> VSS? (there may be comments in spec based on other questions results)
> Y/N
> 
> Should Gen2 allow for other data models for vehicle signals?
> (Separate
> data models can be used for other "domains" for eg media, location,
> etc) Y/N
> 
> Does the WG agree that should there be an impassible obstacle with
> VSS
> that it will fork? Y/N
> 
> Does the WG agree that we should have a concept of having a frozen
> snapshot make sense for Gen2 as we have done for VISS? (VSS1 tree)?
> Y/N
> 
-- 
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Automotive Lead
http://www.w3.org