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

Re: Comparison of compression algorithms

From: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 09:51:15 -0400
Message-ID: <5c98d20004ce3328209d582f2649c4c36454b55c.camel@w3.org>
To: Ulf Bjorkengren <ulfbjorkengren@geotab.com>
Cc: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 10:41 +0200, Ulf Bjorkengren wrote:
> >>  Say you're managing several million vehicles. Do you want to poll
> them
> frequently wondering if they are on/running and online (within cell
> reception)? 
> 
> A use case like this may be better solved with a push paradigm. 
> But there are also use cases where a pull paradigm is to prefer. 
> What I say is that we should try to make Gen2 support both paradigms
> as well as possible. 
> To do this for pull use cases,compression support for Gen2 payloads
> is one relevant feature. 

Absolutely and useful for both push and pull.

An in-vehicle sampling application, perhaps dynamically changing its
subscription based on on-board analysis or refined directive from cloud
server it is sending information to, can utilize cache or local storage
of data from Gen2 that is already well serialized and compressed in
some format we have yet to decide on for when it has connectivity and
can push it to the cloud. Alternately as in your pull from vehicle
directly using Gen2, that format will make transmission notably more
efficient.

Let's focus on compression and different existing formats to see what
may be the most suitable for these similar use cases.

-- 
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Automotive Lead
https://www.w3.org/auto


Received on Thursday, 3 September 2020 13:51:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 3 September 2020 13:51:20 UTC