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

Re: VSS instantiation discussion

From: Ulf Bjorkengren <ulfbjorkengren@geotab.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:57:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHfMbK8d5fw7hORVOUhCNSw=3YB_eMHVMKrrnuGDvcH-HUAZ6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
Cc: "Schildt Sebastian (CR/ADT1)" <Sebastian.Schildt@de.bosch.com>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 1:12 PM Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>

> On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 09:54 +0000, Schildt Sebastian (CR/ADT1) wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As usual (well most of the time J ) what Ulf says makes sense.
> >
> > First two points I would agree, however for the last one
> > “All metadata from a node in YAML MUST be preserved in the translations,
> > except for instantiation metadata that MUST not be present. “
> >
> > I am not so sure. Because if exporting to “dumb” formats like .csv it
> > might not even be possible to do that in a sane way.
> As of today I would say that as of today all formats are equally dumb or
> smart (basically they include exactly the same information) but maybe not
> in some of the future scenarios that were discussed.
> Please explain further what you mean that it is not possible to do in a
> sane way.   We have made proposals already how to describe the complete
> "flat" tree after insantiation has happened.  So those are not sane or your
> mind is on a different scenario.
> > Personally I doubt the usefulness of CSV export anyway, but since some
> > people use it/need it, such things should not be forbidden.
> I have the same view of CSV but almost for all other formats too, including
> JSON, as we discussed yesterday.   Individual consumers may want to have
> these formats, but the VSS itself should stay concentrated on the meaning
> of the source format in YAML.  That said, I think it's also most likely
> that VSS must define some things about how instantiation is transformed
> into a concrete tree, instead of leaving that open for implementations.
I think is absolutely vital from an interoperability point of view that VSS
clearly defines the outcome of instantiation.

> I'm mostly hoping for a single basic translation in all cases, not
> different ones depending on the target format.
 If not, we have failed. Completely.

> Whether the VSS-tools provides converters to different formats is a
> separate issue.  We should expect even more of them to pop up:
> Recently, a converter to Franca IDL was updated and functioning.  This
> serves a purpose because there are other existing and proven tools that
> ingest Franca IDL, and because it is a generic interface language used for
> other reasons.  (And for that matter the Vehicle Service Catalog - VSC will
> be functionally compatible with Franca as well).
> The same should be true for generation of AUTOSAR-XML, in my personal
> opinion.  Also there we have a situation with  a platform and toolset that
> expects a certain input format.
> While I'm on the topic -- more examples:  We have already made conversions
> of VSS to GraphQL schema, and tooling should to go into vss-tools
> eventually.
> Conversion to DTDL (basically JSON-LD) which is used by Microsoft is to be
> expected, and it remains to be seen if such a converter might also be
> hosted in GENIVI/vss-tools or not.
> So, providing those tools can be useful but we should try to keep the
> discussions apart if we can.   (continued below)
> I also think in a lot of those cases a de-facto implementation could be
> enough, with not so much formal requirement specifications at least
> initially.
> As far as CSV being (not) useful, my opinion is:
> Either implement a ".TXT" format that only lists the VSS node names with
> full paths, and nothing else, or simply accept that the *first column* of
> the CSV is what we have used to serve this purpose.   That's my view at
> least on what the CSV format is being used for today.
We already have this:
I think this list should be pointed to in the documentation as the place to
find the full paths of the completet tree.

> > I think we should formulate as guidelines
> >   “All metadata from a node in YAML SHALL be preserved in the
> > translations”
> Sounds reasonable in general but I'm not sure I agree.  Maybe it is  a
> devil's advocate counter point, but I could envision some target technology
> where not all metadata is used.  So why then force to include it in a
> conversion?  Let's say a particular target has no possibility to make use
> of the description line, for example.  Why would you then put it into that
> generated file?
> Perhaps by preserved you mean that it should be a reasonable conversion *if
> it is included* so that a kind of semantic compatibility remains?  I would
> lean more towards such a statement.
> Basically I think it is already implied that anyone will include all the
> metadata that will be useful, and there is no risk of forgetting to do
> that.

Implied rules are not to trust, better make them explicit.

> So IMHO no rule required, if you meant ath *all* metadata must be
> included.   Again, this might be because I'm leaning towards the view that
> most target formats are the responsibility of the "consumer" that needs
> that target format.  And that consumer will surely ensure that the metadata
> that is useful will be there, and none other.  Seems enough for me.
> > For instantiation it is really the “instances are a VSS feature” vs.
> > “instances are just syntactic sugar” we started yesterday . In the second
> > case (I feel we are leaning that way currently)
> Possibly but I'm not yet leaning that way.  I think the original
> plain-tree
> thinking is still a powerful model and a good result format.  It is
> limiting from one sense, but it is keeping simplicity from another.
> I fear that it is premature to try to solve what could become a much larger
> issue. I am concerned we solve one issue, and then run immediately into the
> next.  If we could call this  "a discussion for VSS version 3" then I would
> be more comfortable.   Once we put instantiation to bed (and array and enum
> types maybe), VSS 2 is already a hugely useful standard, in my view, that
> production projects could actually use (as was done already with v1), and
> it should not be held back by a v3 discussion that could take a long time
> to get right.
> One thing to remember is that the VSC is being built up now, and that is
> basically something that will have almost all the modeling capability of
> Franca IDL!  So there is a lot there that might come in and impact things.
> In the longer run, the most logical view of the future seems to me that
> VSS+VSC eventually merges into some kind of combined model.  And for that
> reason I want to warn against stop-gap solutions in VSS that might be
> limiting for a larger rewrite later on.
> I think we would benefit from pushing some of this towards a "v3"
> timeframe, but maybe we allow just a little more analysis (with Daniel's
> coming examples) to see.
> > “Instantiation metadata SHALL be processed and expanded so the output
> > represents a flattened VSS tree”
> Seems like we are in agreement.  But this is the "syntactic sugar" approach
> I guess?  Unless you have some other notion of flattened tree, that somehow
> keeps the information about instances.
> > Then I feel for “common” output formats we have today (like JSON, CSV),
> > we should find some middle ground between saying “this IS VSS” and “this
> > is just random code, please ignore”.
> Fully agree.  Could we simply say that this is VSS vs VSS-tools?   VSS
> should remain a specification, which may include _some_ requirements on how
> to convert in certain cases.  Then some parts of VSS-tools might follow
> that specification, whereas some might not.  I mean some tools might ADD
> things that do not contradict -- never contradict but go *beyond* the
> requirements stated in the VSS specification.
> There is another and I think even more important distinction, because some
> parts of the industry are still conflating these things, and that is:
> 1. The industry-wide standard catalog of signals.
> 2. The shared format/tooling/methodology of VSS, which is applicable both
> for standard signals and proprietary catalogs.
> The 2) is it really the "data model" if we want to pick up that definition
> game again?  A model, is just that, it is a model for how to model data?
> It is not the actual data items.  Or???  Naming this is important.
> I'm leaning towards that these two things should have explicitly different
> names, because right now the concept of "VSS" kind of implies both of them,
> and it seems to confuse some people.   Back on-topic for W3C protocols, it
> is also somewhat unclear I think - the VISS protocol seems to embrace both
> 1) and 2), and does not distinguish betwen them.  But we should recognize
> also that VISS and Gen2 are also technologies that *could* apply to
> proprietary data.
> > We can say “When exporting to JSON/CSV, the canonical JSON/CSV output
> > format should look like this”, because I think even following the 3 rules
> > you laid out, there are probably many JSON formats that can adhere to
> > them.
> >
> > Generators we are still “playing” with we can just mark as experimental
> >
> >
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
> >
> > Sebastian Schildt
> >
> > Communication and Network Technology (DS1) (CR/ADT1)
> > Robert Bosch GmbH | Renningen | 70465 Stuttgart | GERMANY |
> www.bosch.com
> > Tel. +49 711 811-15765 | Mobil +49 173 7124227 |
> > Sebastian.Schildt@de.bosch.com
> >
> > Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
> > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Franz Fehrenbach; Geschäftsführung: Dr.
> > Volkmar Denner,
> > Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer, Dr. Michael Bolle, Dr. Christian
> > Fischer, Dr. Stefan Hartung,
> > Dr. Markus Heyn, Harald Kröger, Christoph Kübel, Rolf Najork, Uwe
> > Raschke, Peter Tyroller
> >
> > Von: Ulf Bjorkengren <ulfbjorkengren@geotab.com>
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Juli 2020 21:20
> > An: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
> > Betreff: VSS instantiation discussion
> >
> > Regarding the VSS instantiation discussion I think we need to establish a
> > few ground rules, in order to not get lost. Below is my attempt on a few
> > rules for such a list.
> >
> > - YAML MUST unambiguously specify the path to a leaf node.
> > - Translations from YAML to other formats MUST preserve the path
> > definitions.
> > - All metadata from a node in YAML MUST be preserved in the translations,
> > except for instantiation metadata that MUST not be present.
> >
> > Regarding Gen2 and JSON I would say that Gen2 is agnostic to what format
> > the VSS tree uses. Gen2 uses JSON as payload format, but that has nothing
> > to do with what format the VSS tree is represented in. In the Gen2 impl
> > project the VSS tree is represented in the native C format, as an
> > example.
> >
> > BR
> > Ulf
> > --
> >  Ulf Bjorkengren
> >  Geotab
> >  Senior Connectivity Strategist | Ph. D.
> >  Mobile        +45 53562142
> >  Visit         www.geotab.com
> >

Ulf Bjorkengren
Senior Connectivity Strategist | Ph. D.
Mobile +45 53562142
Visit www.geotab.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2020 11:57:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 8 July 2020 11:57:03 UTC