W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-autowebplatform@w3.org > December 2016

[auto-bg] minutes - 13 December 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 03:19:16 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XCJCBaOsdOBRpUZW3VqKB5AT=9o9vJmwF4_aamuSRwDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-autowebplatform@w3.org" <public-autowebplatform@w3.org>
available at:

also as text below.




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                             Automotive BG

13 Dec 2016



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-auto-irc


          Kaz_Ashimura, Paul_Boyes, Philippe_Colliot, Qing_An,
          Ryan_Davis, Wonsuk_Lee, Ted, Adam_Crofts,
          Shinjiro_Urata, Rudi_Streif, Tatsuhiko_Hirabayashi

          Wonsuk, Paul, Qing_An

          kaz, ted


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Media tuner
         2. [6]Redefining the role of the BG
         3. [7]Test environment
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

Media tuner

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   -> [10]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-tvapi-minutes.html TV
   Control minutes

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-tvapi-minutes.html

   ryan: working on media tuner topic
   ... discussion with the TV Control guys
   ... really productive
   ... based on a common ground
   ... brought use cases from auto
   ... the way the tuner spec is written is hardware-centric
   ... not only a tuner but collection of tuner and player would
   be needed
   ... "tuner" is confusing from technical viewpoint
   ... I'm submitting some high-level architecture
   ... getting out of the concept of "tuner" and use another
   concept of "player"
   ... playing/decoding media
   ... a player may be responsible some media stream
   ... and another player might be responsible to another resource
   ... this morning all the TV Control guys agreed

   paul: sounds good

   kaz: yes

   ryan: the original use cases I had on the spreadsheet
   ... will be rewritten
   ... the architecture is in question
   ... they're looking the recorder capability as a different
   ... but a player could be simply connected to a recorder
   ... the other issue is audio zones
   ... can be solved by the multiple player approach
   ... a tuner entity can be actually a player which is tied with
   ... make sense?

   kaz: agree :)

   wonsuk: one question
   ... there was a proposal by VW
   ... included media tuner capability
   ... something like spotify
   ... possible application in vehicle

   ryan: current spec doesn't handle that
   ... currently specific to TV tuner
   ... rather tied with hardware
   ... while I myself don't care about hardware
   ... but concentrate on resources
   ... have not looked at VW's proposal itself, though

   wonsuk: good question

   ryan: have worked with several OEMs
   ... players play media based on user's requests
   ... haven't work with VW but might be similar

   wonsuk: ok
   ... can we share the VW proposal with the other group
   ... want to check

   ted: I'm working on VW's Member submission
   ... which will be public
   ... including car library, media tuner, etc.
   ... also CDN service
   ... hoping we'll publish it before the publication moratorium
   ... will send announcement once it's published

   wonsuk: ok
   ... I'm curious about the Member submission
   ... standardization based on a submission by a W3C Member?

   ted: formal submission by a Member to W3C
   ... which can be discussed by the BG

   wonsuk: ok
   ... after we have the document from VW, we can share it with
   other W3C Members. right?

   ted: yes
   ... expected next week

   wonsuk: ok. good.
   ... any comments?

   ryan: interested to see that as a Christmas present :)

Redefining the role of the BG

   wonsuk: we've discussed this topic before
   ... at that time, I mentioned we needed to form a TF to revisit
   use cases
   ... and we need to try to add more use cases
   ... like payments use cases
   ... also lots of different use cases



   kaz: do you confirm that direction?

   wonsuk: yes

   kaz: as Paul put on IRC, there were several work areas

   paul: yes, and there were some more from VW
   ... how should we handle this?

   ted: announcement will be made during the Member submission
   ... have conversation
   ... talking with Ian Jacobs about Payments
   ... possibly we could have discussion on vehicle-specific use

   paul: traffic API as well?
   ... HERE is not a W3C Member yet. right?

   ted: no
   ... but recently joined GENIVI

   rudi: we're waiting for their input
   ... maybe we could draft a new charter for backend APIs

   paul: the BG is free to explore any use cases

   ted: that's correct

   kaz: right

   <ted> scribenick: ted

   kaz: BGs are encouraged to define charter in order to clarify
   scope to prospects but it does not have to be rigidly defined
   (unlike WG)

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

   paul: ADAS use cases?

   rudi: part of the discussion within GENIVI
   ... GENIVI is collaborating with OCF

   philippe: concerning HERE, not sure about their intention yet
   ... their work is very important for the LBS topic
   ... we'll likely have a meeting in January

   <ted> scribenick: ted

   kaz: I was wondering how to handle Geolocation mapping and
   traffic data in context of LBS topic
   ... it should probably be in a single task force
   ... later it might make sense to create a separate one

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

   wonsuk: also thinking about that
   ... open APIs on the cloud side for traffic data

   paul: could be interested
   ... what about mapbox? are they a W3C Member?
   ... monitoring and checking the stuff
   ... connected with PSA guys?

   ted: they're interested in REST APIs but still need some more

   (discussion on infographic about vehicle industry stakeholders)

   <ted> [12]http://pass-projekt.de/

     [12] http://pass-projekt.de/

   <ted> [agree it would be helpful to have a map of different
   standards bodies involved in auto and their areas. we keep
   learning of new/duplicate efforts]



   <ted> [OMA is trying to have an authorative document along
   those lines]



   <paul> lochbridge infographic connected car


     [15] http://lochbridge.com/blog/next-big-automotive-revolution/

   paul: Lochbridge's whitepaper

   wonsuk: interesting item to me
   ... what about cloud APIs like Amazon?
   ... we can also sync with existing cloud APIs
   ... there are companies provide APIs for smart home
   ... we can think about how to integrate existing APIs like
   smart homes and speech APIs

   rudi: interesting to me too
   ... OCF is working on that kind of APIs
   ... automotive profile is one of their defining profiles

   paul: there is a WoT group within W3C as well

   rudi: we can integrate capabilities

   paul: HERE has mechanism to integrate location data
   ... interesting to research quickly
   ... btw, is anybody could join the call for security?

   ted: security call on Thursday

   rudi: they're modeling security portion
   ... vehicle signal server to get connected
   ... lot of good momentum

   kaz: info on the WoT IG
   ... they'are launching a WG shortly
   ... also have restarted the discussion on security and privacy
   from the viewpoint of WoT
   ... and would like to invite experts from related groups
   including the Automotive group
   ... Hashimoto-san should be a good starting point for the

   paul: what about OCF liaison?

   kaz: WoT group is forming liaison with OCF as well

   paul: good
   ... Hashimoto-san's joining the WoT security discussion would
   be great
   ... there are different domains

   kaz: also my second point is that some of the vehicle
   capability could/should be handled by a bit more abstract layer
   like WoT rather than the Vehicle Signal Server

   paul: yeah

Test environment

   paul: btw, wondering about the test environment
   ... Urata-san mentioned he was working on the Web Platform
   Testing environment

   kaz: yes
   ... as you know, there is the Web Platform Testing
   ... but the framework is developed mainly for pc/mobile Web
   ... we should be able to use the framework for part of the
   Vehicle Signal Spec features since the framework includes
   WebSocket capability (for pc/mobile browsers) as well
   ... however, we need to add modules to get vehicle data on the
   Vehicle Signal Server side and send the data to the Vehicle
   Signal Client side

   Kaz's note on the resources from the Web Platform Tests
   - [16]Web Platform Tests Project
   - [17]Test Suite for Web Platform Testing infrastracture
   - [18]Web Platform Test Runner site

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/README.md
     [17] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests
     [18] http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html

   paul: ok
   ... this topic itself is not really the topic for the BG but
   I'll put it together
   ... anything else for today?

   wonsuk: anything else?


   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/12/13 18:14:29 $

     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 18:20:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:49 UTC