- From: Rees, Kevron <kevron.m.rees@intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 19:32:08 -0700
- To: Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com>
- Cc: ALDRIC LOYER <aldric.loyer@mpsa.com>, Tatsuhiko Hirabayashi <ta-hirabayashi@kddi.com>, Marc Lapierre <mlapierre@qnx.com>, 박종선(Justin Park) <jongseon.park@lge.com>, "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, Bernard Gidon <bgidon@w3.org>, Alan Bird <abird@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFW5wYbReNTmP08nQh0dQiiAwGRDfaZ8+6jDGwCrYXsXjfzGTg@mail.gmail.com>
I admit it seems awkward to get speed from a geolocation api. But it's something so generic that I wonder if there should be a 3rd api that both could use. -Kevron On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Paul Boyes <pb@opencar.com> wrote: > Kevron, Aldric, et al. > > Speed, in the context of Geolocation, is part of the Coordinates > Interface which in turn is accessible through the Position Interface. This > context is related to yet different than Speed from the vehicle information > perspective in that it is related to location. Speed from a vehicle > context does not necessarily have anything to do with location. It > typically means the vehicle is moving under its own power/control at a > certain velocity. I believe the context of acceleration in a vehicle is > much the same. In my opinion they are two related yet different concepts. > I believe we should leave speed and acceleration in the Vehicle > Information Spec. > > When determining if an attribute/data element should be in the Vehicle > Information API or in some other API, I think we need to look at context > and concept. If they are identical, then we should ask, “In what domain > should they fundamentally reside?” If the context and concept are > different, they more than likely they should reside in both domains. > > What do you think? > > Paul J. Boyes > -------------------------------- > Mobile: 206-276-9675 > Skype: pauljboyes > > > > > On May 13, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Rees, Kevron <kevron.m.rees@intel.com> > wrote: > > I'm okay with Aldric's proposal. Adding to his justification is > Paul's from the meeting: the vehicle information spec is extensible. > OEMs can implement the API with geolocation and vehicle speed, etc. > > Aldric, do you want to do a merge request with your proposed changes? > > -Kevron > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, ALDRIC LOYER <aldric.loyer@mpsa.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > You’ll find attached a formalization of my proposal to be discussed. > > Best regards > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > De : Paul Boyes [mailto:pb@opencar.com] > Envoyé : lundi 12 mai 2014 22:22 > À : ALDRIC LOYER - J433842; Rees, Kevron; Tatsuhiko Hirabayashi; Marc > Lapierre; 박종선(Justin Park); public-autowebplatform@w3.org; Philipp > Hoschka; > Kazuyuki Ashimura; Bernard Gidon; Alan Bird > > > Objet : Re: Vehicle Location Information > > > > For our discussion tomorrow and at the face to face, regarding new APIs, > for > those suggesting a new API, please come prepared with very specific > arguments and examples. Ideally you will ultimately have the following: > > paper laying out use cases and one or more of the following: > > recommended changes to existing W3C spec and why > recommended changes to the vehicle information spec and why > recommended new api for our group and why it is needed given other W3C APIs > > Adam, Philipp, Kaz, Bernard, and Alan, et al. > > > > Please let us know if I have missed anything and any other details those > suggesting new APIs need to consider. Your thoughts would be much > appreciated. > > > > > > Paul J. Boyes > > -------------------------------- > > Mobile: 206-276-9675 > Skype: pauljboyes > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 9:27 AM, ALDRIC LOYER <aldric.loyer@mpsa.com> wrote: > > > > I guess vehicle.acceleration (4.9.18) is in the same case, there is very > probably already this API somewhere in W3C APIs. > Concerning vehicle.temperature, as we consider inside vehicle and outside > vehicle, I guess we can keep them as fully vehicle oriented. > All other vehicle interface are, for me, fully vehicle oriented. > To be discussed tomorrow or next week. > Best regards > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rees, Kevron [mailto:kevron.m.rees@intel.com] > Envoyé : lundi 12 mai 2014 17:54 > À : ALDRIC LOYER - J433842 > Cc : Tatsuhiko Hirabayashi; Paul Boyes; Marc Lapierre; 박종선(Justin Park); > public-autowebplatform@w3.org > Objet : Re: Vehicle Location Information > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:43 AM, ALDRIC LOYER <aldric.loyer@mpsa.com> > wrote: > > Hi Kevron and other contributors to this topic, > Definitely, Apps developers want to use a unique API to get geolocation > and, > of course, current w3c geolocation API is the good one. And then I agree on > the fact that OEMs (or third parties) have to provide the low level > framework needed to choose between the native sensor and the added sensor > (provided by the vehicle)... > But now the question is the same for the vehicle speed API, do we use the > one provided by the standard w3c geolocation API (position.coords.speed) or > do we need a specific one ? > > > On principle, I think I would have to say no, we don't > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 02:32:37 UTC