W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-autowebplatform@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Specification starting point.

From: Andy Gryc <AGryc@qnx.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:06:28 +0000
To: "Rees, Kevron" <kevron.m.rees@intel.com>, "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <833412C9D0467D44A222F75082E8C6E60574F1D4@exmbx4.ott.qnx.com>
Hi Kevron,

Although I appreciate your suggestion to give us the longest runway, I'm not sure that this is the approach to take. My colleague Tina Jeffrey has been working on compiling a list of the differences between the two public specs (Webinos and Tizen) and QNX's. Although the three are certainly similar in places, there are a number of substantial differences. To that comparison, we would need to add the GenIVI differences. Each spec has things that it does well, and things that others do better; areas where the spec is complete, and areas where it is insufficient.

As soon as we're done with this research, we'll post it to the group.

To me it makes sense to collaboratively examine the differences and discuss them to determine an approach. I think that this could definitely be a discussion topic at the Tokyo meeting. Yes, this approach will show a slower initial start and there are many things to discuss, but I feel that this will be the best way for us to all come to a consensus with a complete and fully-thought-out solution.


From: <Rees>, Kevron <kevron.m.rees@intel.com<mailto:kevron.m.rees@intel.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 7 May, 2013 3:30 PM
To: "public-autowebplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-autowebplatform@w3.org>" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-autowebplatform@w3.org>>
Subject: Specification starting point.
Resent-From: <public-autowebplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-autowebplatform@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, 7 May, 2013 3:31 PM

Hi all,

In effort to reach our goal of having a draft specification published by December, it would make sense to start right away.  We could take a template from another W3C specification and with some work turn it into our specification for vehicle data.  However, I think it would be appropriate to start from something that is already related to vehicle data.  Specifically the Tizen Web API specification.  For one, it's already in W3C acceptable format.  Secondly, it probably contains more than we'd like to start with and removing is always easier than adding.  Lastly, the source for the specification is already public and using git so collaboration can happen immediately.

So I propose that we start with the Tizen Web API specification with a few modifications:

1) Start with only a "get" interfaces.  Remove the "set" and "getHistory" methods for now.

2) Reduce the data to an agreeable level.

3) Add data types as deficiencies are discovered.

For reference:

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 20:07:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:36 UTC