W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-autowebplatform@w3.org > December 2014

Feedback on Vehicle Data specification

From: Andersson, Gunnar <gunnar.x.andersson@volvocars.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:03:20 +0000
To: "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>
CC: "Abramski, Adam M (adam.m.abramski@intel.com)" <adam.m.abramski@intel.com>, "Rees, Kevron (kevron.m.rees@intel.com)" <kevron.m.rees@intel.com>, "Philippe Robin (philippe.robin@technoveo.com)" <philippe.robin@technoveo.com>
Message-ID: <650DC6C42C57A5468713D19F994A3AE1188474B3@050-DB3MPN1-021.050d.mgd.msft.net>
Hello everyone,
(I decided to withdraw the message and send to the list under a different 
thread - don't want to clobber your nice announcement by replying to 
the thread.  There is of course the risk that one of you respond to the 
previous email which then lands on the original thread ;-)

> Subject: Announcement - Final Specs posted for Vehicle Data and Vehicle
> From : Abramski, Adam M <adam.m.abramski@intel.com>
> Hi all,
> We just wanted to formally announce that this business group has finalized
> the spec that we've been working on for the past 22 months and since the
> formation of this group in Feb 2013.  This is a major milestone as this is
> the first spec the group has created!

It is indeed.  Good job.

> As you all are hopefully aware, the W3C, Paul and I are in the process of
> forming a W3C Working Group that will specifically address the needs and
> nuances in the automotive industry and web technology.  The charter is here
> for those of you who haven't seen it or would like to view it:
> http://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter.html
> So this final Vehicle Data and Information spec we just finished will be
> the starting point for the working group to work on and hopefully deliver a
> W3C standard web spec in due course.  Pointers to the spec:
> http://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/data_spec.html
> http://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/vehicle_spec.html

I have to start with my sincere apologies for doing exactly the wrong 
thing which is to provide review input after release instead of in due 

But we all have our jobs and I simply have not had the focus to review W3C
work.  I've previously only tracked some of the input coming from GENIVI
members in this area and I was now only opening the document to check it
quickly out of interest.  Unfortunately my eyes immediately spotted a spelling
mistake, which I found odd, so that led me to simply run it through a spell
checker.  I think you missed running a spell check so there are some minor
language fixes needed for the next version.

Going through the false positives in the spell check also caused me to see a
few other small issues.  Mainly that the enum names are somewhat inconsistent
if looking across the whole spec (under_score, CamelCase and combinedwords)..
Again, sorry for late feedback and you will have to decide how to handle this
-- keep it, fix it, use deprecation or whatever...  It's not major.  I'm not
sure how "final" those definitions are now - as you indicated it isn't a W3C
standard yet after all.

So I now have this feedback as a diff with comment bubbles in Microsoft 
Word format - how would you prefer to have it delivered? Maybe it could
provide some input for a future version nonetheless. It is a very good 
starting point you have created here!

Congratulations and Best Regards,

- Gunnar

P.S. I have not performed the same check on the other specification...

Gunnar Andersson
Lead Architect, GENIVI Alliance
Infotainment, Volvo Car Corporation


> Sincerely,
> Adam & Paul
> Adam M Abramski
> Product Planner
> Internet of Things Group/Transportation Solutions Division
> 503-264-8269 (o)
> 503-550-7910 (m)
> adam.m.abramski@intel.com
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 18:28:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:40 UTC