Re: Vehicle Information API Draft Now Published

I believe it is important we arrive at a expression of the measure of energy per distance traveled. Selecting such a universal energy unit will allow the expression of multiple modes of transportation (electric, gasoline, hydrogen, or even pedestrians?). The spec would be platform agnostic.

If you don’t discuss this at the F2F, let me know and I will continue to research the issue.

Cindy Lewis

On May 16, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Vadim Draluk <vadim.draluk@gm.com> wrote:

> Thanks. Cindy!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucinda Lewis [mailto:cindy.lewis@me.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Rees, Kevron
> Cc: Vadim Draluk; Paul Boyes; public-autowebplatform@w3.org; internal-autowebplatform@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Vehicle Information API Draft Now Published
> 
> Vadim.
> 
> I followed up on your question regarding which small-scale units for fuel consumption such as "Instant Fuel Consumption" we should use in the spec. Hirabayashi-san may be able to offer some vocabulary solutions here. I have also contacted SAE.
> 
> Based off my research, kWh/100-mi would be a unit of measurement that would work for all cars: electric and gasoline.
> 
> What I have not been able to answer however, is whether hydrogen car mileage (evaluated as "mpa" or mega pascals), could also be expressed in kWh/100-mi. We'll need some help with this one.
> 
> Cindy Lewis
> 
> On May 16, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Rees, Kevron <kevron.m.rees@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Welcome back, Vadim.
>> 
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Vadim Draluk <vadim.draluk@gm.com> wrote:
>>> Team,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Better late than never" - I'm back to the office now, and reviewing
>>> the latest draft. Here are some comments:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1.      The most obvious one first: UnitsofMeasure interface does not
>>> reflect the proposal I've written up and adjusted according to quite
>>> a few comments I have received. What's the plan there? Is it
>>> considered not yet ready to be included, are we going to have more discussions at F2F?
>>> 
>> 
>> I didn't know it was ready.  That may have been my misunderstanding.
>> There are two ways we can get it in: you can do a "pull request" on
>> github with your patch, or I or Justin can merge it in manually.  How
>> would you like to proceed?
>> 
>>> 2.      DriverIdentification: IMO this one has to be substantially
>>> generalized. Key fob is only one method of identification, and there
>>> are already other methods deployed, announced or implemented: face
>>> recognition, Bluetooth, eventually fingerprint and whatever else. A
>>> good overall approach would be to separate ID type (one of the above)
>>> and the actual ID whose semantics is determined by the type
>>> 
>> 
>> So basically an ID type that's more abstract, and a type with several
>> id primitives?
>> 
>> -Kevron
>> 
>>> 3.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Paul Boyes [mailto:pb@opencar.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 9:33 AM
>>> To: public-autowebplatform@w3.org; internal-autowebplatform@w3.org
>>> Cc: Vadim Draluk
>>> Subject: Vehicle Information API Draft Now Published
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Vehicle Information API draft is now published in the reports
>>> section
>>> here:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please review and send your questions and comments to the group.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks to everyone who has helped get the specification to this point.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Paul J. Boyes
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Mobile:   206-276-9675
>>> Skype:  pauljboyes
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic
>>> signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
>>> 
>>> Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for the person or
>>> entity to which it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or
>>> privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other
>>> use, or taking of any action in reliance upon this message by persons
>>> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may
>>> be unlawful. If you received this message in error, please contact
>>> the sender and delete it from your computer.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
> 
> Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use, or taking of any action in reliance upon this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your computer.
>

Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 17:55:36 UTC