W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > January 2020

Re: VSS Layers introduction

From: Rudolf J Streif <rudolf.streif@ibeeto.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 07:33:36 -0800
To: Magnus Feuer <mfeuer1@jaguarlandrover.com>, Ulf Bjorkengren <ulfbjorkengren@geotab.com>
Cc: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>, W3C Public Automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <89c39e00-3236-81f2-9813-4fec81c517d2@ibeeto.com>
I thought about using an attribute to define what an overlay does
before. I came to the conclusion that it is not that good of a solution
as it makes adoption of somebody else's overlay tree quite complex as
you have to go through every single file and look if you like the
overlay or not.


If the whole concept of it is really necessary, and I am not quite sold
on that in the first place, then there should be a toplevel way of doing it.


:rjs


On 1/20/20 12:17 PM, Magnus Feuer wrote:
> Late to the party, as per usual.
>
> We do very much need layers. As Ulf and Rudi pointed out, we need to
> think about removing both metadata and whole branches, for example
> when a single instance of something needs to be replaced by an
> enumerated list of instances. 
>
> A somewhat silly example is if we have multiple IVI systems, which
> necessitates the following change: 
>
> ...Infotainment.[subtree] -> ...Infotainment.1.[subtree],
> ...Infotainment.2.[subtree]...
>
> In this case the existing "...Infotainment.[subtree]" needs to be
> deleted since it would interfere with the enumerated list of IVIs.
>
> One (somewhat over-engineered) solution would be to add metadata
> (attribute) to the overlay file's the branch, specifying how the
> overlay should be applied:
>
> #
> # I am an overlay file that modifies an existing tree.
> #
> - Vehicle.Cabin.Infotainment:
>   type: branch 
> *  overlay: replace* # or one of  extend, modify, modify_and_extend. 
> *
> *
> - Vehicle.Cabin.Infotainment.1:
>   type: branch
> ...
>
> The overlay attribute can be one of:
> *extend*
> The overlay extends an existing branch in the signal spec, but does
> not modify existing signals. If an existing signal is re-defined by
> the overlay, an error is thrown.
> Metadata can be added to existing signals.
>
> *modify* 
> The overlay modifies existing branches and signals in the original
> spec. If a signal (or branch) does not exist in the original, an error
> is thrown.
> Metadata can be added to existing signals.
>
> *modify_and_extend [default]*
> The overlay can both modify existing branches and signals, and create
> new one.
>
> *replace*
> The entire branch is cleared from the original specification, and only
> the structure defined in the overlay will be used.
>
> Would that work?
>
> /Magnus F
>
>
> -------------------
> /System Architect Manager/
> *Jaguar Land Rover*
>
> *Email*: mfeuer1@jaguarlandrover.com <mailto:mfeuer1@jaguarlandrover.com> 
> *Mobile*: +1 949 294 7871
>
>
>
> Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
> 1450 NW 18th Ave, Portland, OR 97209
> -------------------
> Business Details:
> Jaguar Land Rover Limited
> Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF 
> Registered in England No: 1672070
>
> This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information for a
> specific individual and purpose.  The information is private and
> privileged and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom
> it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, please e-mail
> us immediately.  We apologise for any inconvenience caused but you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution or the
> taking of any action in reliance on the information contained herein
> is strictly prohibited.
>
> This e-mail does not constitute an order for goods or services unless
> accompanied by an official purchase order.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rudolf J Streif
> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2020 10:44
> *To:* Ulf Bjorkengren
> *Cc:* Gunnar Andersson; W3C Public Automotive
> *Subject:* Re: VSS Layers introduction
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> > I like that the VSS layers model as I understood it takes as input
> "layer files" with the same filename, but different extension, located
> in the same directory as the
> > vspec file that they are to update.
>
> Actually that is not how it currently works. The overlay files can
> have different names and are in different directories. What is
> important is the branch name of the nodes and that they files are
> included at the right position in the tree. That means, yes, you can
> have a file with a different name (including extension) in the same
> directory and include it there or you can have a full directory tree
> starting at the root. And of course anything between these two "extremes".
>
> > With this model we will have the existing tool(s) that transform the
> vspec YAML format to other formats (JSON, csv, etc), and new tool(s)
> that use the YAML layers to
> > modify the YAML vspec files.
>
> The converter tools already handle that.
>
> > Adding or overriding metadata in nodes should be straight forward.
> Removing metadata in nodes needs a little more design thinking, maybe
> with a separate "remove-
> > tool" and layer files?
>
> Removing nodes from the default tree through an extension tree is a
> use case that has not yet been discussed.
>
> > What to me seems more complicated is to add or remove nodes, is that
> something that should be supported?
>
> Adding nodes is supported. The whole scheme is actually pretty simple
> if a node already exists when an extension/layer file is processed
> then the fields get updated (or added for that matter if a field does
> not yet exist e.g. CAN DB field). If a node does not yet exist it will
> be added.
>
> :rjs
>
> On 1/20/20 5:36 AM, Ulf Bjorkengren wrote:
>> I like that the VSS layers model as I understood it takes as input
>> "layer files" with the same filename, but different extension,
>> located in the same directory as the vspec file that they are to
>> update. 
>> With this model we will have the existing tool(s) that transform the
>> vspec YAML format to other formats (JSON, csv, etc), and new tool(s)
>> that use the YAML layers to modify the YAML vspec files. 
>> Adding or overriding metadata in nodes should be straight forward.
>> Removing metadata in nodes needs a little more design thinking, maybe
>> with a separate "remove-tool" and layer files? 
>> What to me seems more complicated is to add or remove nodes, is that
>> something that should be supported?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:31 PM Rudolf J Streif
>> <rudolf.streif@ibeeto.com <mailto:rudolf.streif@ibeeto.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Actually this statement is not quite correct:
>>
>>     1) Potential for *any number of* layers. (As of now the private
>>     branch
>>     acts as a *one* additional "layer" that can override and add data, as
>>     you now described)
>>
>>
>>     It's not limited to a branch called 'private'. What branch is
>>     merged and
>>     where is defined by an include in the toplevel
>>     VehicleSignalSpecification.vspec. Now of course this begs the
>>     question
>>     what happens if there are multiple includes that modify/amend the
>>     same
>>     nodes when there are conflicts? The answer is: "the last one wins" as
>>     the includes are processed in order of appearance in
>>     VehicleSignalSpecification.vspec. That essentially constitutes an
>>     implicit priority.
>>
>>     Layer priority is probably something that you want to add to the
>>     slide
>>     "Additional design challenges".
>>
>>     :rjs
>>
>>     On 1/16/20 9:52 PM, Gunnar Andersson wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Thanks for pointing that out, Rudi.
>>     >
>>     > (continued...)
>>     >
>>     > On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 09:32 -0800, Rudolf J Streif wrote:
>>     >> Functionality of appending and/or modifying a node from one branch
>>     >> with
>>     >> a node from another branch with the same signal path is already
>>     >> available in VSS.
>>     > [trimmed]
>>     >
>>     >>
>>     https://github.com/GENIVI/vehicle_signal_specification/commit/518dfbeb2a434c9c55ec27e06c84f6e8caf941bd#diff-4a931512ce65bdc9ca6808adf92d8783
>>     >>
>>     > That's great and shows that this thinking was there from the
>>     beginning.
>>     > That commit indeed provides an implementation that is a
>>     starting point
>>     > for the behavior that this proposal looks for.
>>     >
>>     >>> The commit message states:
>>     > [trimmed]
>>     >
>>     >> Now that does not cover everything from Gunnar's slides (in
>>     >> particular
>>     >> there is no wildcard support) but it's a starting point.
>>     > Yes.  And a few other differences that come to mind.  These are
>>     things
>>     > that might be added on top of the current model, *if* the
>>     layers idea
>>     > were adopted:
>>     >
>>     > 1) Potential for *any number of* layers. (As of now the private
>>     branch
>>     > acts as a *one* additional "layer" that can override and add
>>     data, as
>>     > you now described)
>>     >
>>     > 2) A proposal of layers as parallell files in the same
>>     directory tree
>>     > -- with different file suffix --  (it would complement the current
>>     > model that places /private as a parallel directory subtree)
>>     >
>>     > 3) The presentation hints at some additional higher level
>>     concepts that
>>     > would allow defining metadata about the layers themselves.
>>     > and as a corrollary it also suggests that we are effectively
>>     defining
>>     > some varying file types.  I.e. they might not be formally
>>     .vspec" files
>>     > but something else.   (The current /private "layer" does not
>>     explicitly
>>     > make a distinction, and basically assumes ".vspec" files to be
>>     there).
>>     > I'm not sure how important that is but it seemed useful to me.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Best Regards,
>>     > - Gunnar
>>     >
>>     > P.S. Since we are now talking about VSS specifics, I expect the
>>     details
>>     > of this will be sorted out using GitHub issues, but if it is in the
>>     > interest of the W3C participants then of course by all means
>>     feel free
>>     > to continue the discussion here.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > It's a great start however.
>>     >
>>     >> :rjs
>>     >>
>>     >> On 1/14/20 12:26 PM, Gunnar Andersson wrote:
>>     >>> As requested today, here is a link to the introduction/rationale
>>     >>> slides
>>     >>> for "VSS Layers".   
>>     >>>
>>     >>> A small caveat, this presentation is a work in progress and
>>     >>> describes
>>     >>> the rationale on a very fundamental level.  The idea is simple of
>>     >>> course, and very generic, because it is useful/needed in a whole
>>     >>> bunch
>>     >>> of areas, not only for access control even if that that was
>>     one of
>>     >>> the
>>     >>> driving areas.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> There of course needs to be some work to tie this into the W3C
>>     >>> protocol
>>     >>> specifics by means of examples etc.  We concluded today that
>>     it is
>>     >>> basically in line with what is needed in Ulf's recent
>>     >>> implementation
>>     >>> work as well as previous similar things that Daniel mentioned had
>>     >>> been
>>     >>> tried in his organization in the past, so hopefully this is
>>     useful,
>>     >>> even if it does not today provide all the concrete examples
>>     in the
>>     >>> W3C
>>     >>> protocol context.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Happy to have the discussion about comparing this to previous
>>     >>> similar
>>     >>> ideas and to define more of the details.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Thanks,
>>     >>> - Gunnar
>>     >>>
>>     >>> [1]
>>     >>>
>>     https://at.projects.genivi.org/wiki/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=40402952&sortBy=date&highlight=VSS+composable+layers+-+draft+20200114.pdf&&preview=/40402952/47711024/VSS%20composable%20layers%20-%20draft%2020200114.pdf
>>     >>>
>>     >>> or shorter:
>>     >>> https://bit.ly/2TnrV05 <https://bit.ly/2TnrV05>
>>     >>>
>>     >
>>     -- 
>>     -----
>>     Rudolf J Streif
>>     CEO/CTO ibeeto
>>     +1.855.442.3386 x700
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Ulf Bjorkengren
>> *Geotab*
>> Senior Connectivity Strategist | Ph. D.
>> Mobile 	+45 53562142
>> Visit 	www.geotab.com <https://www.geotab.com/>
>>
>> 	
>>
> -- 
> -----
> Rudolf J Streif
> CEO/CTO ibeeto
> +1.855.442.3386 x700

-- 
-----
Rudolf J Streif
CEO/CTO ibeeto
+1.855.442.3386 x700


Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 15:33:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 21 January 2020 15:33:46 UTC