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

Re: First Draft Spec - Dead Reckoning Interface

From: Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:18:26 +0000
To: "Abramski, Adam M" <adam.m.abramski@intel.com>
CC: "Rees, Kevron M" <kevron.m.rees@intel.com>, ALDRIC LOYER <aldric.loyer@mpsa.com>, "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>, 박종선(Justin Park) <jongseon.park@lge.com>
Message-ID: <81D335E8-2695-40CE-AD0F-A3695842DEF9@opencar.com>
From my experience, voice discussions in conjunction with email can be much more efficient in coming to understanding, if people participate.  So, I feel that we should discuss via voice, with participation, and email, with participation.  IMO - it should be on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting.

Paul J. Boyes
Mobile:   206-276-9675
Skype:  pauljboyes

On May 9, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Abramski, Adam M <adam.m.abramski@intel.com<mailto:adam.m.abramski@intel.com>> wrote:

I agree with you both.

But could we discuss this over email vs in the monthly conf call next Tuesday?  I say this because as history has shown no one really speaks up nor is it really a place to make any decisions.  Its more for a status update and to sync up with everyone.  I think having this discussed over email is a much better mechanism to bottom out on a decision.

Anyone disagree?  And certainly we can talk more if need be about this at the F2F in 2 weeks time.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rees, Kevron [mailto:kevron.m.rees@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 8:57 AM
Cc: public-autowebplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-autowebplatform@w3.org>; 박종선(Justin Park); Paul Boyes
Subject: Re: First Draft Spec - Dead Reckoning Interface

I agree with Aldric.  The changes makes sense.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:47 AM, ALDRIC LOYER <aldric.loyer@mpsa.com<mailto:aldric.loyer@mpsa.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
I think we should review the "DeadReckoning interface" for the following reasons :
1/ The Steering wheel angle is actually not used in algorithms for Dead reckoning processing.
2/ WheelTickSensor attribute should distinguish rear left wheel and rear right wheel. If there is only one attribute for both, I don't understand how can it work.
3/ Additionally, dead reckoning algorithms also uses the reverse gear shift indication, but we already have the TransmissionMode interface for that.
4/ Finally, some suppliers use a cape to compute the Dead reckoning (provided by an accelerometer) instead of the wheel ticks, and we don't know if in the future other strategies will appear.

My overall position concerning this interface is that "dead reckoning" is an application software component and then we shouldn't predefine what data are needed for this kind of function.
The Vehicle Data API specification should only give access to a set of data that one can use to compute its own Dead Reckoning function.

In conclusion my proposal is the following :
- Remove the DeadReckoning Interface.
- Add a WheelTickSensor interface for each wheel. Furthermore, this
information can be useful for many other use cases (detect a slippery
road, estimate a low tire pressure,  ...)
- Add a SteeringWheelAngle Interface. Indeed, even if not needed for Dead Reckoning,  Steering wheel angle can be useful for many other use cases and then we really need a specific API for that.

I propose to address also that point on Tuesday.
For the rest every thing is okay for me.

Thank you very much to all contributors.

Aldric LOYER
PSA Peugeot Citroën
Responsable de l'UEI COTI
(Connectivity, Telematic and Infotainment) Direction de la Recherche
et de l'Ingénierie Avancée Tel : +33 (0) 1 57 59 81 35 (20 81 35)
Portable : +33 6 32 34 55 59

Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 16:18:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:39 UTC